Topic List |
Page List:
1 |
---|---|
Scotty_Rogers 02/11/21 11:43:34 AM #1: |
When you argue that a mistake retroactively is no longer a mistake just because it indirectly led to something good.
--- FAM FOREVER. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
philsov 02/11/21 11:49:18 AM #2: |
I'm pretty sure it's more of a "bias" than an outright fallacy, centered somewhere around rationalization.
--- Remember that I won't rest, 'til we share the same tense Just know, to me, you're better late than never again. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
MedeaLysistrata 02/11/21 11:49:53 AM #3: |
I don't think that has anything to do with fallacious reasoning. A consequentialist would argue if you make a mistake and something good happens, you did something good. It depends on the theory that informs the value of mistake.
You can't really have "the mistake had a good outcome" as an a priori premise It can look lile this: -if the mistake has a good outcome, it's not a mistake -the mistake had a good outcome because it wasn't a mistake Then you might have circular reasoning, but, -Mistakes with good outcomes are not mistakes -your mistake had a good outcome - you made no mistakes Is valid --- "Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH [Is this live?][Joyless planet...] ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
R1masher 02/11/21 11:51:48 AM #4: |
Hahaha, no
--- R1R1R1R1R1R1 ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
Topic List |
Page List:
1 |