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.
Does this claim have any kind of finality whatsoever? It seems to be nothing other then the canonization of a philosophical interpretation, itself committing any number of fallacies. I'm unable to find any adherent of the Copenhagen Interpretation (it's original target) that bothers to address it's rather vague and obscure objection. It seems to mostly be the fodder of self-congratulation by forum and blog posters, without any kind of logical or epistemic certitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilibrium103 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Considering there's already a fallacy page which deals with different types of fallacy in a much more detailed way, wouldn't it make sense to just merge this list into that page rather than have one page displaying all fallacies of a particular type under a heading without much information about why the various fallacies are categorized as formal/informal etc? Just a suggestion.Equivocasmannus (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Proof by verbosity ("argument to exhaustion") does not link to the intended place, but to Proof by intimidation, a largely unrelated fallacy. The text here even confuses them, probably because of the pseudo-Latin monicker ascribed to the latter. Proof by intimidation is the fallacy of argument to one's own preeminence or position (or to that of those making the argument one is defending); it is a combined variant of argument to authority and argument to emotion, and has nothing to do with "winning" arguments by flooding the opponent with so much material they give up. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't find heaven's reward fallacy in this list. The fallicy is the expecation that good things should happen to good people. Should this be added? Can this be added? --Lbeaumont (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I like it! So much that I put it in right away with a citation I found. I put it in Informal fallacies right after gambler's fallacy alphabetically, but is also another hopeful thinking type fallacy. Thanks for pointing it out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)