Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. [1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the "perfect solution fallacy".
In this sense, "nonsense" does not refer to meaningless gibberish, but rather to the lack of sense in the context of sense and reference. In this context, logical tautologies, and purely mathematical propositions may be regarded as "nonsense". For example, "1+1=2" is a nonsensical proposition. [5]
In regards to content and sources, the least effective thing one can do is to simply assert over and over, "X is/isn't true," or "X is/isn't a reliable source." Empty assertions, are never convincing. These statements do not make themselves true, no matter how many times you say them. Empty assertions usually result in escalation of conflicts.
Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. When in another's lair, show them respect or else do not go there. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
The Associated Press obituary for Cochran mentioned the Chewbacca defense parody as one of the ways in which the attorney had entered pop culture. [8] Criminologist Thomas O'Connor says that when DNA evidence shows "inclusion", that is, does not exonerate a client by exclusion from the DNA sample provided, "About the only thing you can do is attack the lab for its (lack of) quality assurance ...
Counterfactual thinking also serves the affective function to make a person feel better. By comparing one's present outcome to a less desirable outcome, the person may feel better about the current situation. For example, a disappointed runner who did not win a race may feel better by saying, "At least I did not come in last."
It does not make sense. (da: 7.9%; sv: 28.0%) Paraphrase (d) is in fact the only possible interpretation of (1); this is possible due to the lexical ambiguity of har "have" between an auxiliary verb and a lexical verb just as the English have ; however the majority of participants (da: 78.9%; sv: 56%) gave a paraphrase which does not follow ...
The alternatives in question do not deny that evolutionary changes over time are the origin of the diversity of life, nor that the organisms alive today share a common ancestor from the distant past (or ancestors, in some proposals); rather, they propose alternative mechanisms of evolutionary change over time, arguing against mutations acted on ...