Need Logic Help

And how exactly does the fallacy of division apply to Matt's argument? Why isn't Bartricks correct that Matt didn't commit any error?

Thanks for replying! Superman is in the category of people who Lois believes can fly. Clark Kent isn't. Therefore, Clark Kent isn't Superman.

Thanks! Are these two tests commonly performed in logic? Would every logician agree that these tests are solid ones to perform, or would there be any ...

Before I give up on this particular forum and try /r/askphilosophy, can you suggest the best user on this forum for philsci issues, just in case I fin...

Can you elaborate on what exactly Dillahunty gets wrong about logic in the video that I linked above? I don't know how I could possibly repay you for ...

My point is simply that I'm not going to express a view on philsci stuff (e.g., whether it's weird that science doesn't depend on falsifiability or wh...

Thanks! This is interesting. Curious to see what the other users in this thread think of your breakdown! Can you explain the two tests that you perfor...

What if you say that you like ALL fruit, I mean, and not tomatoes, and then find out that tomatoes are fruit.

I guess that we need to know exactly what argument Matt was presenting. Right? Or else we can't evaluate if it's logically solid or not logically soli...

What if you say you like fruit, but then say that you don't like tomatoes, and then conclude that a tomato isn't a fruit? A tomato is in fact a fruit,...

That's a good point. How do you think that the first premise could be more clearly stated?

Just to be clear, I'm not out to get Matt Dillahunty or anything. I genuinely just want to know the truth of the matter. So does P1 fail or does it no...

Are you familiar with the philsci literature on these issues? I agree that it sounds weird. I would've thought otherwise. But I'm not a philsci schola...

Thanks. Just a final clarification: Would you guess that most people on this forum happen to have a degree in philosophy? Not that that matters in its...

Thanks. Would I better off to try /r/askphilosophy? There seem to be some fairly expert people on there.

To be fair, some of this stuff might be well within the reach of a university-student who knows philsci. If falsifiability really went out of relevanc...

I'm in the process of trying to reach various experts, but I wonder if there's at least one person on this website who might fit the bill. They don't ...

Do you know people on this website who might be really expert on philsci (or logic, ethics, epistemology) who might be able to help me out with this t...

If I ask about what "philosophers" think, then it's going to include a truckload of opinions that are totally worthless to me: people who have contrib...

"Philosopher" is ridiculously broad. William Lane Craig is a philosopher. But he's not a leading/serious/influential scholar in epistemology. I would ...

"Philosopher" is way too broad. That's why I've always specified that I'm talking about serious/leading/influential philosophers in particular fields ...

I apologize. I wasn't angry, and I put a happy-face emoji in order to try to indicate my emotions; I apologize if it came across as angry nonetheless....

I don't care about "philosophers". I've never once in this thread asked about "philosophers". For example, this person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I think we're talking past each other here. I'm trying to be serious. I want to know if philsci-experts would say that anything in what I linked in my...

Try to give me a chance to fix typos, too, before you respond.

By "error", I don't mean anything technical. I simply mean: "Not knowing what you're talking about." Suppose someone says that science relies on falsi...

Does any serious/leading scholar of epistemology challenge the notion that nonbelief (in supernatural/religious claims) is rational? I would love to r...

I just mean philosophy of science.

Thanks for replying! 1: I apologize for any vagueness. It's annoying to simply ask philsci (and other) experts to weigh in on this material, since it ...

By the way, I sincerely apologize for allowing myself to get knocked off course. I shouldn't have mentioned anything irrelevant to the issues raised i...

Thanks for responding. I want to clarify something absolutely crucial. I would imagine: --nonbelief (in supernatural/religious claims) is not remotely...

I just want to clarify a couple points, since there seems to be some extreme confusion here. First, I'm a nonbeliever. I don't accept any supernatural...

I'm just interested in the questions that I asked in the post about whether there's any bad philosophy being spread. I think Matt is annoying. Some of...

I don't like him as a person, but that has nothing to do with whether he's right or wrong about philosophy. He can be very obnoxious (just watch liter...

If there are no major errors in his substantive material, then that's fantastic. That's what's at issue here: Is his substantive material solid or not...

Thanks. I'm just pushing this idea as a potential fact: "the religious people are way off-base and Dillahunty also commits major errors when he wades ...

You raise a good point: "Whose assessment of Dillahunty would be useful?" The first step would be to have some critical academics vet the stuff, whoev...

There seems to be a potential major error here. If not, I apologize. But why assume that the options are (1) "Dillahunty is solid in the stuff that he...

When you mention the "commonly cited" textbook, is that something that Dillahunty cites? Or is it just commonly cited in general by...by whom? Thanks!

Thanks for getting back to me! I appreciate the fantastic response! I know that Dillahunty is not an academic or anything, but I'm curious about wheth...