Timeline for What's the logical fallacy here?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2020 at 21:09 | answer | added | mario | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 28, 2020 at 15:15 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | It could also be just a sort of implicit assumption "only one member of a given conceptual category, like states of consciousness or ethnic groups, can be normal". Either way, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises as stated, so it's just a non sequitur argument or "formal fallacy". | |
| May 28, 2020 at 15:12 | vote | accept | brilliant | ||
| May 28, 2020 at 13:36 | answer | added | E... | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 28, 2020 at 5:42 | comment | added | Conifold | Now you are simply denying the antecedent:"if Asian then normal" does not entail "if not Asian then not normal". You'll need the converse, "if normal then Asian", for that, i.e. one has to be Asian to be normal, which is false. In contrast, "if normal then sleeps sometimes" was true at least on one of equivocal readings. | |
| May 28, 2020 at 5:23 | comment | added | J D | Just addressed second example which NB is fundamentally different than first. | |
| May 28, 2020 at 5:11 | comment | added | J D | @brilliant To reason that properties of opposites are necessarily the same is a false analogy that does revolve around an equivocation of the copula. See below. | |
| May 28, 2020 at 5:10 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 28, 2020 at 4:56 | history | edited | brilliant | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 139 characters in body
|
| May 28, 2020 at 4:53 | comment | added | brilliant | Thank you. But what if I replace B with, say, "Being an Asian is normal" and the conclusion with "Being a Caucasian is abnormal", where will the fallacy be then? Will it also be a case of equivocation? | |
| May 28, 2020 at 4:37 | comment | added | Conifold | It is called equivocation. If "sleeping" means "sleeping all the time" then it is not normal, and B is false. And if it means "sleeping sometimes" than "not sleeping sometimes" is "being awake all the time", and there is no paradox in the conclusion. | |
| May 28, 2020 at 4:35 | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 94 characters in body; edited tags
|
| May 28, 2020 at 4:24 | history | asked | brilliant | CC BY-SA 4.0 |