Category talk:Relevance fallacies
 | Philosophy: Logic Category‑class | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Biblical literalism[edit]
Why is the "Biblical literalism" article in this category? I can't see how the content of that article expands on the concept of relevance fallacies.
There is only this one single quote by some professor claiming that "Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies... is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism." (in the "Pejorative use" section of the article). It is however not stated in any way what exactly is meant by that, nor any explaining example or evidence given. Certainly nothing that would merit the whole article being shown as part of a collection of articles on the topic of "relevance fallacies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.70.254 (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed that article and Qur'anic literalism from the category. I suspect it meant that the argument contains a fallacy, but more usually the articles in this category deal with types of fallacies themselves and not the arguments that contain them. That's just speculation though because, as you noted, the articles say little. —Mrwojo (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)