|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
SirKnight,
That's (almost) called "misleading vividness". If you need to, you can check out Wikipedia and see what it is.
|
|
|
How would I benefit by knowing what something almost means?My dictionary gives the following definitions on "vivid" 1 very bright.2 conveying images that are true to life.I don't understand what you mean,perhaps you could elaborate further.
|
|
|
"The logical fallacy of misleading vividness involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem. Although misleading vividness does nothing to support an argument logically, it can have a very strong psychological effect because of a cognitive heuristic called the availability heuristic."
There's something wrong in my opinion with that definition, in that it really doesn't need to try and convince that it is a problem, rather than, say, an advantage.
Anyway, basically it says that one example, no matter how shiny and detailed and explicit, usually can't prove something on its own.
You might want to look up "hasty generalization" as well (on Wikipedia, too). 
|
|
|
You can show me a hundred Web pages on this subject and I'll still say it's nonsense.
Rubbish, trash, drivel, balderdash, gibberish, gobbledygook, stupidity, foolishness, folly, blather, twaddle, mumbo-jumbo, bunkum, claptrap, cobblers, poppycock, piffle, waffle, rot, tripe, tosh, codswallop, baloney, humbug, hooey, bull.
See? 
|
|
|
Well then just read "hasty generalization" for all I care
|
| Previous 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next |
|
|
|
