Timeline for What is a good argument against "ad populum"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2013 at 18:37 | answer | added | Sofie Ross | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 29, 2013 at 11:43 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/361814348961808386 | ||
| Jul 28, 2013 at 11:24 | answer | added | Kleiner Prinz | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jul 27, 2013 at 7:15 | answer | added | Rex Kerr | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 27, 2013 at 5:32 | answer | added | Mozibur Ullah | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 27, 2013 at 3:19 | comment | added | Dan D. | That is from David Macaulay's Motel of the Mysteries. | |
| Jul 27, 2013 at 1:36 | comment | added | Baby Dragon | Unfortunately I do not remember the name of the book. | |
| Jul 27, 2013 at 0:57 | comment | added | Oliver Schöning | @BabyDragon That sounds awesome, I gotta find that! | |
| Jul 27, 2013 at 0:57 | comment | added | Oliver Schöning | @prash Ah yes.. I suppose I do have that problem on SE often.. | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 23:10 | comment | added | Baby Dragon | This post reminds me a a story a friend told me about where some archeologists in the future were studying our time. They found what we would recognize as toilets, but the archeologists concluded that they were alters. | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 22:35 | comment | added | prash | This reads less like a question, and more like an invitation for a discussion. Not a good fit for the SE format, methinks. | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 18:24 | comment | added | stoicfury | I don't think this is necessarily best fit for history.SE. For starters, please read W.K. Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief" (here is a shortened version of it; I think the longer one is still a good read if you can find it). Then, see SEP's entry by the same name: The Ethics of Belief | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 18:10 | comment | added | Oliver Schöning | Cheers, ill do that | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 17:49 | comment | added | Ben | If your question is how historical claims are justified, then it is more fit for the history SE (although it could to some extent be a philosophy of science question). Historiography certainly isn't based on ad populum arguments; it is much more complex than you make it seem here. I would suggest reading into an introduction to historical criticism and historiography first. | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 12:45 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 26, 2013 at 15:08 | |||||
| Jul 26, 2013 at 12:32 | history | edited | Oliver Schöning | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 183 characters in body
|
| Jul 26, 2013 at 12:26 | comment | added | Oliver Schöning | If you have a more Fitting Title, please tell me, or just Edit it yourselves ! | |
| Jul 26, 2013 at 12:26 | history | asked | Oliver Schöning | CC BY-SA 3.0 |