Just a reminder, the subject is A5 vs A3, not visc calcs. Maybe you guys should let Shell know their online calc is so fatally flawed.
Again, it's not a matter of accuracy, were not launching satellites, it's a tool to make a rough comparison between 2 oils. I have yet to hear a better method.
So, you guys seriously have no idea which oil is thicker, Edge 5w-30 or TDT 5w-40? You're saying they are the same "5w" oils...if I understand correctly. Let me say I think it's you guys who have LITERALLY nothing to back that up, only that my visc calc is "inexact", so the results are "incorrect".
That's a logical fallasy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy,[2] or fallacist's fallacy.[3]
Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.
The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.
Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the Perfect solution fallacy.
Example: "If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be NO traffic whatsoever."
By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. The choice is not between real world solutions and utopia; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic possibility and another which is merely better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_repetition
Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe an argument which has been continuing "to [the point of] nausea".[1] For example, the sentence, "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam", signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively, and that those involved in the discussion have grown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
It is the refusal to admit that at a particular point in time when the momentum of individual or group opinion exists for a particular course of action or, for action without any particular preferred course; that there is in fact no justification to take any action. And what is being sought, is in fact merely a rationalization (based upon fallacy), that temporarily assuages justifiable doubt that proposed action(s) are auto de fe (act of faith) alone, with no justification in the knowledge that is at hand.
This should not, however, be taken to mean that one can never possess evidence that something does not exist; an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost
Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring
Red herring: This occurs when a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy
Regression fallacy: ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect), argumentum ad potentiam (Latin: argument to power), or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).