Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Bertrand Russell's example in the Copleston–Russell debate: "Every man who exists has a mother... therefore the human race must have a mother". [1] This was intended to illustrate how cosmological arguments for God's existence (specifically Frederick Copleston's) commit the fallacy by assuming that the universe itself requires a cause or an explanation for its existence just because ...
Dutch edition book cover of Why I Am Not a Christian. Why I Am Not a Christian is an essay by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell.Originally a talk given on 6 March 1927 at Battersea Town Hall, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society, it was published that year as a pamphlet and has been republished several times in English and in translation.
The Copleston–Russell debate is an exchange concerning the existence of God between Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell broadcast on the BBC Third Programme on 28 January 1948 and again in April 1959. [1] [2] The debate centers on two points: the metaphysical and moral arguments for the existence of God. [3]
In rhetoric, emotive or emotional conjugation (also known as Russell's conjugation) [1] is a rhetorical technique used to create an intrinsic bias towards or against a piece of information. Bias is created by using the emotional connotation of a word to prime a response from the audience by creating a loaded statement.
Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS [7] (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and public intellectual. He had influence on mathematics , logic , set theory , and various areas of analytic philosophy .
It was suggested to Russell as an alternative form of Russell's paradox, [1] which Russell had devised to show that set theory as it was used by Georg Cantor and Gottlob Frege contained contradictions. However, Russell denied that the Barber's paradox was an instance of his own: That contradiction [Russell's paradox] is extremely interesting.
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. [1]
The paradox of thrift is an example of the fallacy of composition, the idea that what is true of the parts must always be true of the whole. The narrow claim transparently contradicts the fallacy, and the broad one does so by implication, because while individual thrift is generally averred to be good for the individual, the paradox of thrift ...