Why? We have to go no further than basic logic to dismiss your reasoning. Basic logic tells us that outliers do not belie a trend and an end result does not disprove the existence of efforts against it.
You’re using a logical fallacy to reach a conclusion, at least in that post.
Would you mind detailing the ‘logic’ you used to reach that conclusion?
Would it be the same ‘logic’ you used to conclude that the bible == science?
Also, would you mind listing my ‘logical fallacy’?
Here’s a website you can use to pick one.
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm
Four data points is a trend
Although, you might have an argument if you assume that Swofford thinks his job is to protect the blues. In that case, he would be terrible at his job
By the way, here’s the logical fallacy you used.
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_ridicule.htm
