Talk:Appeal to novelty/Archives/2015
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Poor examples
The page says:
- The date a computer was manufactured has nothing to do with how effective it is.
This appears to be false. Every computer manufactured in 1992 was more effective than every computer manufactured in 1947. Clearly, the dfate a computer was manufactured has something to do with how effective it is.
- Dominus 17:27, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I don't think any of the three arguments given were good examples. In fact, given reasonable background assumptions, they are all valid. I have replaced them with some alternatives.
- Original examples:
- "Hovercars are the wave of the future! You should invest all your money in Hovercar stocks." (Hovercars may be futuristic, but that does not necessarily make them a sound financial investment.)
- "This computer was made in 2003, therefore it is far superior to that computer made in 2001." (Although computer speed is increasing, one should consider actual specifications rather than mere date-of-construction.)
- "Our satellite television service offers digital quality picture and sound." (It uses digital as a synonym to good or excellent, despite the fact that digital is not a qualitative adjective.)
- Townmouse 00:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)