u/SquirrelPower

We're not really disagreeing here, the issue really is just that the term "fallacy" has a specific meaning. If an argument is false that doesn't mean it's fallacious or invalid!

Take your example:

all Xs are Ys 
all Ys are Zs
so therefore all Xs are Zs

That's a valid argument. There are no fallacies hiding inside it. But suppose the first premise was wrong and some Xs are not Ys -- well, then the argument is false despite lacking any fallacies!

Because a "fallacy" refers to the structure of an argument and whether it is a valid or invalid inference, and its not obvious that the structure here is invalid. This looks like a clear case of modus ponens:

If a biostatistician says X, then X is true
A biostatistician says X
Therefore, X is true

But a valid argument can still be wrong! The first premise ("If a biostatistician...") might be false, in which case the argument would be valid but (as my logic professor taught me) unsound. And you can reject unsound arguments, the same way you can reject invalid arguments.

edited to add: basically, being wrong is not a fallacy, so if an argument is wrong that doesn't immediately mean it has some fallacy hiding inside it.

But there is a difference between a "fallacy" and a weak argument. There is a tendency for people to think that every argument that is wrong or weak or flawed or bad or incorrect is fallacious in some way, and refuting the argument only requires figuring out which fallacy is at play and exposing it to the world, thereby stripping all power away from the argument.

But that's not how it works. Sometimes good arguments can be wrong, and weak arguments can be correct, and not all bad arguments are fallacious. So:

if someone said it was true because it was said by a biostatistician, that's still a "fallacy".

No. That's not a fallacy. It is however a weak argument that could be improved by citing the biostatistician's evidence & reasoning.

Oddly enough, your links do not exactly prove your point. From the second link, about the "appeal to authority":

Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources.

So, if the "appeal to authority" is defined as you would have it -- as any appeal to an authority, even a relevant authority -- then it is not obviously a fallacy.

This is just incorrect. I'll quote the relevant paragraph from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is either not really an authority or a relevant authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them.

It's ridiculous how much fun I've had with this awesome book and a $2 ATtiny85. Picos and ESP32s are fun, but I think the bare AVR chips are the real next step after learning on an Arduino.

The free will debate is about metaphysics, not truth.

Isn't it a little bit of both? Libertarianism vs determinism seems like a question of metaphysics, but compatibilists and hard determinists seem to share the same ontology even though they differ on whether a statement like "Agent A freely performed action B" can ever be true.

Are you getting the knowledge points drops from herbing and mining? The Thalassian Phoenix Plume and the Igneous Rock Specimen? Or are you just getting the KPs from first-time gathers on new nodes?

IIRC you can only get skinning KPs from the drops, never from first-time gathers on new skins. And its the drops that I thought weren't getting turned on until the weekly reset. Looking back, i can see I worded that unclearly.

Seems to be the same for herbalism & mining. I assume they get turned on with the weekly reset, so the non-early access people aren't permanently ~10 points behind.

Tradition is important in the Warcraft community

I picked up The Horde Needs Lean Wolf Steaks! from a random AV about 12 years ago and I have yet to complete it, so no, i do not think I will be using your macro.

Thank you for your answer!

To further clarify: is it correct to say that there's no necessary connection between intuitionism and moral realism (or moral objectivity, assuming those two terms mean the same thing)? I, for one, have strong intuitions that intuitionism is false, so if the truth of moral realism entails the truth of intuitionism then I guess I have no other option than to embrace moral anti-realism.

But Cuneo's "partners in crime" argument seems convincing. I have no problem accepting a minimal, naturalistic account of the truth of (at least some) epistemic norms. So if, by the "partners in crime" argument, I in turn accept that there may be a minimal, naturalistic account of the truth of (at least some) moral norms then I should call myself a moral realist even if I reject the very idea of weird & spooky non-natural moral properties?

So, the idea is that the same sorts of things that underwrite non-moral beliefs similarly underwrite moral beliefs. For the intuitionist, justifications stop somewhere -- namely with intuitions. And this holds true in the perceptual realm, mathematical realm, or moral realm.

This is unclear to me. What exactly holds true in the perceptual, mathematical & moral realms -- that justification stops somewhere, or that justification stops with intuitions?

I only ask because these two options seem very different to me.

In addition to what everyone said, certain open world activities can be affected by server pop size. Events like the theater event near Dornogal or the Undermine weeklies are almost impossible on my low, low, low pop server unless I do them immediately after the weekly reset, or I get lucky and get sharded to a high-pop server. And even then I've seen those events fail because I've been bumped from a high-pop realm where they were almost completed and dropped into my own realm where there was literally no one else working on them.

i really could not disagree more. First, the costs of everything would get multiplied by an absurd number, so everything would be more expensive.

Second, if I see a house that has 100 elekk plushies, i want to know that the person who collected them all was dedicated to the process and not just someone who hit Ctrl-C once and Ctrl-V 99 times.

(And yes, it will be me. I will be the one with 100 plushies.)

This is true only if the sole incentive is the economic value that can be extracted. If we are all value maximizers (spoiler alert: we are) then to maximize value our only option is to extract as much economic value as possible.

But if you add additional incentives -- social, cultural, legal, whatever -- on top of the economic incentives then maximizing value is no longer limited to exploiting resources for economic gain.

Off the top of my head the only reference I can think of (other than my old notes from my game theory class) would be The Emergence of Norms by Ullmann-Margalit where she argues that cultural & social norms exist in part to solve Prisoner's Dilemma-type problems, of which the Tragedy of the Commons would be an example.

They make changes based on feedback. That is an objectively good thing. That is literally the point of a beta. Nothing -- literally nothing -- gets done correctly on the first go. Every single thing in the game get iterated on.

The real question is why the community chooses to give their feedback in the form of crying, whining, and doom-posting.

the transmog UI is so big it closes all other windows, so you can't grab icons from anywhere.

Doesn't work. The transmog UI is so big it closes all other windows, so you can't grab anything to drop in the icon-window,

Your suggestion does work for macros and icons for gear sets tho, so that's still pretty cool.

edited to add:

It looks like (at least on my wide-ass screen) the t-mog UI can be open at the same time as inventory, so it is possible to use the drag-and-drop for items you still possess. Which is better than nothing but for transmog most of the icons I would want to use belong to items I vendored years ago.

To be fair, confusing the colloquial definition of "imply" with the rigorous, mathematical one is the mistake everyone makes.

I also think a better definition would be the strict conditional rather than the material conditional. I only say this because that's what I was taught in school -- I had a professor in a stats class literally say that correlation does not strictly imply causation, but it does strongly hint or suggest it.

I'm running the neovim nightly, I'm pretty sure things have changed significantly from versions 0.10 to 0.11 to 0.12. So this might not work for you. But what I have is a top-level after folder with an lsp folder in it. Like so:

├── init.lua
├── after/
│   ├── lsp/
│   │   ├── clangd.lua
│   │   ├── README.md
├── lua/
│   ├── config/
│   │   ├── keymaps.lua
│   │   ├── plugins.lua
│   │   └── options.lua
│   └── plugins/
│       ├── nvim-lspconfig.lua

Then the content of the clangd.lua:

return {
    cmd = { "clangd",  "--query-driver=/usr/bin/*gcc" },
    root_markers = { '.clangd', 'compile_commands.json' },
    filetypes = { 'c', 'cpp' },
}

What was happening for me was that nvim-lspconfig was overwriting my own configuration so the query-driver option was getting lost. But anything in the after/lsp folder will be the last thing merged into the LSP config, so your local options should get the highest priority.

I spent an embarrassingly long time reading & digesting :h lsp-config in order to come up with that but it works, at least in 0.12.

I've had similar issues, and it's usually been a problem with my neovim LSP configuration. Are you using nvim-lspconfig? The last link is four years old, a lot has changed in how neovim handles lsp clients since then.

What does :LspInfo show when you have the pico file open? vim.lsp should show clangd under Active Clients, and you should be able to see if the all-important "--query-driver=/usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-g*" is getting added to the command invocation.

When I first heard about the whole "some people are transgender" thing back in the 90s, one of the oft-repeated claims was that e.g. trans men were literally male brains trapped in women's bodies. Since then the biological basis for that claim has grown even stronger and more concrete than it was back then (for anyone interested in support for this, I'd suggest googling "Robert Sapolsky transgender", there are several youtube videos of him discussing the current neuroscience of transgender brains) and yet almost all the discussion I see on the topic is on the much more abstract topic of gender and the social construction thereof.

I'd love to see a philosopher just flat-out ignore Butler here, and actually discuss the moral and ethical implications of what we should do when people are born with biologically male brains in biologically female bodies (and vice versa, of course).

I never really understood this. I mean, Achilles is well-known to be big and strong while the tortoise is small and weak. Why can't Achilles just force the tortoise to accept the truth of Q?

Now hold up, I'm not trying to argue against you in any way! I completely agree with your top-level comment!

All I'm trying to say is that for some people, such as the OP who said they are "relatively new to philosophy and am still getting familiar with some of the terms" the technical meaning of the term "anti-realism" and the prima facie meaning are at odds. That is, in fact, the basis of their very question.

I think that pointing out the strangeness of the term "anti-realism" can help students and/or neophytes understand the difference between anti-realism vs. nihilism (or skepticism) of something.

edit: it's obvious I have added nothing to the conversation, so I'll just see myself out.