Timeline for Where is the fallacy here?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2019 at 10:24 | comment | added | JeffUK | If 3. had said "Cats being born in the wild is the ONLY thing that is natural" then your conclusion would be true. | |
| Mar 6, 2019 at 18:12 | comment | added | jpmc26 | "...are not needed except as definitions." You say that as though definitions are not vital. In formal logic, they're crucial. | |
| S Mar 5, 2019 at 19:07 | history | suggested | GentlePurpleRain | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add actual hyperlinks to Wikipedia references
|
| Mar 5, 2019 at 17:33 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 5, 2019 at 19:07 | |||||
| Mar 5, 2019 at 4:57 | comment | added | Shufflepants | Seems like in addition to denying the antecedent, it's a form of equivocating as it makes use of the ambiguous mean of "is". Where in the first 2 statements it uses "is" to mean "has the property of". And then in 3, 4, and the conclusions tries to use that same "is" in the sense of equality. | |
| Mar 5, 2019 at 4:53 | comment | added | Mark Andrews | @brilliant Yes. See my comment to your original question. | |
| Mar 5, 2019 at 2:10 | comment | added | brilliant | Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right? | |
| Mar 5, 2019 at 2:09 | vote | accept | brilliant | ||
| Mar 5, 2019 at 22:48 | |||||
| Mar 5, 2019 at 1:54 | history | answered | Mark Andrews | CC BY-SA 4.0 |