Talk:Historical fallacy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

I'm not sure the bread example works

To infer that gas bubbles are a part of the process of making bread, that would be correct, that is not fallacious.

To infer that gas bubbles were an ingredient rather than incident to the process(though not at all incidental to the process), that information just isn't there to be inferred from the results of the process, it is imaginary, it is a black-box transformation of confusion to falsehood, and I can't figure out how it could have anything to do with "reading (aspects of the result?) into the content of the process". If these words have special domain-specific meanings, please use different words if possible, because they are nothing but misleading.

I don't know that the example is really the issue here, but there must be a problem somewhere in the article, because I'm the middle of its target audience and I've got little clue what it's trying to convey.Myas012 06:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)‎[reply]

This is a basically orphaned start of an article with a single primary source quote, that is not even clear what it is talking about. The "historical fallacy" does not appear in any list of fallacies, including the Wikipedia List_of_fallacies. An internet search just leads to this article Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is deemed worth keeping, I suggest the term "read into" can be made clear before the example section. Also a second example, involving more solid parts and no chemistry, would be helpful. I think the article should be included in the List_of_fallacies, as it was attempted in the past, and if anyone wants it removed from there he should be kind enough to offer a reason for its removal. Hoverfish Talk 22:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]