Question 1: What is the name of the Formal Fallacy wherein a Deductive Conclusion is arrived at via the course of an Inductive Argument?
Question 2: Also, is this fallacy considered a "Deductive Fallacy" since it concludes Deductively; or rather, is it considered an "Inductive Fallacy" because its Form is Inductive?
This happens a lot, in linguistics, hermeneutics, philosophy, and religious discussions.
- A is probably B
- B entails X
- Therefore, A must entail X
Example: Regarding Textual Primacy
- The Common spoken Language in Palestinian Israel, at the time of Jesus, was almost certainly Aramaic, or at the very least a Hebraic form of Aramaic.
- Jesus probably spoke his "messages" in Aramaic.
- Therefore, the most authoritative written/textual variants of the "Gospels" must be the Aramaic texts, rather than Greek.
(This argument precludes all kinds of other possibilities; but regardless, no matter how you dice it, no set of probable facts could entail certainty in this case.)
Specialization Example, "The Root Word Fallacy/Weak Analogy":
- In Greek, Similarity between words often times suggests the same meaning.
- The Greek word X is similar to Y
- Y implies Z.
- Therefore, X must imply Z.