Where is the fallacy here?
Where is the fallacy here:
whatever is natural is not unnatural
whatever is unnatural is not natural
the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural
the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is not the phenomenon in point 3
Conclusion: the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is unnatural
logic
asked 3 hours ago
brilliantbrilliant
1134
New contributor
brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Where is the fallacy here:
whatever is natural is not unnatural
whatever is unnatural is not natural
the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural
the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is not the phenomenon in point 3
Conclusion: the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is unnatural
logic
asked 3 hours ago
brilliantbrilliant
1134
New contributor
brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
3 hours ago
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
1 hour ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
1 hour ago
1
It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.
– jobermark
49 mins ago
add a comment |
Where is the fallacy here:
whatever is natural is not unnatural
whatever is unnatural is not natural
the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural
the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is not the phenomenon in point 3
Conclusion: the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is unnatural
logic
asked 3 hours ago
brilliantbrilliant
1134
New contributor
brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Where is the fallacy here:
whatever is natural is not unnatural
whatever is unnatural is not natural
the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural
the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is not the phenomenon in point 3
Conclusion: the phenomenon of rabbits being born into this world is unnatural
logic
logic
asked 3 hours ago
brilliantbrilliant
1134
New contributor
brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
brilliantbrilliant
1134
New contributor
brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
brilliant
asked 3 hours ago
brilliantbrilliant
1134
New contributor
brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
brilliantbrilliant
1134
asked 3 hours ago
brilliantbrilliant
1134
1134
New contributor
brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
brilliant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
3 hours ago
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
1 hour ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
1 hour ago
1
It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.
– jobermark
49 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
3 hours ago
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
1 hour ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
1 hour ago
1
It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.
– jobermark
49 mins ago
1
1
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
3 hours ago
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
3 hours ago
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
1 hour ago
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
1 hour ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
1 hour ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
1 hour ago
1
1
It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.
– jobermark
49 mins ago
It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.
– jobermark
49 mins ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Here is the argument:
No N is not-N.
No not-N is N.
All C are N.
No R are C.
Thus: No R are N.
The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.
Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.
The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,
answered 1 hour ago
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
2,7851623
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.
answered 2 hours ago
Jonah.PJonah.P
112
New contributor
Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)
– brilliant
1 hour ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.
You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.
answered 2 hours ago
Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker
1,524512
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.
– Lee Daniel Crocker
50 mins ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
47 mins ago
add a comment |
The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N
- RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,
- CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,
- therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.
R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
85618
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60901%2fwhere-is-the-fallacy-here%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Here is the argument:
No N is not-N.
No not-N is N.
All C are N.
No R are C.
Thus: No R are N.
The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.
Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.
The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,
answered 1 hour ago
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
2,7851623
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Here is the argument:
No N is not-N.
No not-N is N.
All C are N.
No R are C.
Thus: No R are N.
The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.
Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.
The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,
answered 1 hour ago
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
2,7851623
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Here is the argument:
No N is not-N.
No not-N is N.
All C are N.
No R are C.
Thus: No R are N.
The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.
Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.
The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,
answered 1 hour ago
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
2,7851623
Here is the argument:
No N is not-N.
No not-N is N.
All C are N.
No R are C.
Thus: No R are N.
The syllogism is invalid for two reasons. First, the third premise denies the antecedent (cats) of the fourth. There can be other animals that are normal. Wikipedia: Denying the antecedent; Formal fallacy.
Second, a term that is distributed in the conclusion (normal) is not distributed in the major premise (all cats are normal). Wikipedia: Illicit major.
The first two premises are not needed except as definitions. The second two, about cats and rabbits, state actual relationships between categories,
answered 1 hour ago
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
2,7851623
answered 1 hour ago
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
2,7851623
answered 1 hour ago
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
2,7851623
answered 1 hour ago
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
2,7851623
2,7851623
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
1 hour ago
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
1 hour ago
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.
answered 2 hours ago
Jonah.PJonah.P
112
New contributor
Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)
– brilliant
1 hour ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.
answered 2 hours ago
Jonah.PJonah.P
112
New contributor
Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)
– brilliant
1 hour ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
add a comment |
You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.
answered 2 hours ago
Jonah.PJonah.P
112
New contributor
Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
You imply in point 3 that all cats are normal. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy, but your argument is invalid because you didn't state that all things normal are cats, only that all cats are normal.
answered 2 hours ago
Jonah.PJonah.P
112
New contributor
Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
Jonah.PJonah.P
112
New contributor
Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
Jonah.PJonah.P
112
answered 2 hours ago
Jonah.PJonah.P
112
112
New contributor
Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Jonah.P is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)
– brilliant
1 hour ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)
– brilliant
1 hour ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)
– brilliant
1 hour ago
By "cats are normal" I meant to say that it is absolutely normal that cats are born into and exist in this world, whatever condition some cats may be born in (blind, no limbs, etc.)
– brilliant
1 hour ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.
You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.
answered 2 hours ago
Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker
1,524512
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.
– Lee Daniel Crocker
50 mins ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
47 mins ago
add a comment |
Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.
You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.
answered 2 hours ago
Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker
1,524512
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.
– Lee Daniel Crocker
50 mins ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
47 mins ago
add a comment |
Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.
You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.
answered 2 hours ago
Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker
1,524512
Your error here is defining "normal" as a single set of things to which something either belongs or doesn't. That's not a useful (or normal) definition. Things are only normal or abnormal in context, compared to others of their kind. Are they a common or typical example of that kind, or are they an unusual or rare example? Normal cats have long tails (Manx cats might be considered abnormal). But a cat would be, say, a very abnormal voter, or an abnormal vehicle (more typical voters being human and more typical vehicles being machines). A perfectly normal person, likewise, would be an abnormal meal (cannibalism being rare), and a perfectly ordinary vehicle (say a bicycle) would be an unusual piece of art to hang on a wall.
You then make a second error in assuming that the statement "cats are normal" is equating the set of cats with the set of normal things. That's not what "are" means in this context. A more appropriate reading of that sentence would be to make cats a subset of normal things.
answered 2 hours ago
Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker
1,524512
answered 2 hours ago
Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker
1,524512
answered 2 hours ago
Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker
1,524512
answered 2 hours ago
Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker
1,524512
1,524512
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.
– Lee Daniel Crocker
50 mins ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
47 mins ago
add a comment |
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.
– Lee Daniel Crocker
50 mins ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
47 mins ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.
– Lee Daniel Crocker
50 mins ago
Your edited question only makes the second error--assuming that "is" means equivalence and not subset. "Cats are carnivores", for example, clearly means that cats are a subset of carnivores, not an identical set.
– Lee Daniel Crocker
50 mins ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
47 mins ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
47 mins ago
add a comment |
The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N
- RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,
- CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,
- therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.
R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
85618
add a comment |
The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N
- RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,
- CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,
- therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.
R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
85618
add a comment |
The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N
- RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,
- CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,
- therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.
R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
85618
The argument is basically the fallacy of Denying the Antecedant. ~C, C → N |- ~N
- RabbitBirths are not CatBirths,
- CatBirths are NaturalPhenomena,
- therefore RabbitBirths are not NaturalPhenomena.
R → ~C , C → N |- R → ~N
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
85618
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
85618
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
85618
answered 1 hour ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
85618
85618
add a comment |
add a comment |
brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60901%2fwhere-is-the-fallacy-here%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
3 hours ago
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
1 hour ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
1 hour ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
1 hour ago
1
It is classically known as 'affirming the consequent'. It involves following an implication backward, or negating both sides of an implication and assuming the result is true. (The former form is 'arguing from the converse', this is the the second form 'arguing from the inverse'.) Even though "an A is an X" implies "any property P of an X is also that of an A', it does not mean that "an A is not an X" implies "any property P of X is not that of an A". Negation does not carry over that way.
– jobermark
49 mins ago