This page shows the changes between two versions of a post by Amicchan in the topic "Anti-Scientific Content" on Talk:Psychiatry.
You can see other versions of this post at its history page.
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
This is not what you or I was arguing. You were arguing that learning a science-related topic will result in learning science. I was stating that learning a science-related does not immediately result in an understanding of science. | This is not what you or I was arguing. You were arguing that learning a science-related topic will result in learning science. I was stating that learning a science-related does not immediately result in an understanding of science. | ||
P.S Your argument is a syllogistic fallacy. You argue that some topics are related to science (some X) and that learners know science (all Y), therefore the learner learns science. | <s>P.S Your argument is a syllogistic fallacy. You argue that some topics are related to science (some X) and that learners know science (all Y), therefore the learner learns science.</s> (Ignore this word salad; I thought I deleted it before I posted.) | ||
"Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that if somebody learns of particular field of science which you personally disagree with, it no longer counts, because you dislike it." | "Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that if somebody learns of particular field of science which you personally disagree with, it no longer counts, because you dislike it." | ||