Where is the fallacy here?“Change” last forever? If not what fallacy breaks the chain of reasoning shown...
Adding days to the Date portion of DateTime throws off the Time portion
Impact on website analytics caused by accessibility issues
What am I? I am in theaters and computer programs
How can I be pwned if I'm not registered on the compromised site?
Skis versus snow shoes - when to choose which for travelling the backcountry?
Pure Functions: Does "No Side Effects" Imply "Always Same Output, Given Same Input"?
Reason why dimensional travelling would be restricted
I encountered my boss during an on-site interview at another company. Should I bring it up when seeing him next time?
When was drinking water recognized as crucial in marathon running?
Wrap all numerics in JSON with quotes
School performs periodic password audits. Is my password compromised?
Didactic impediments of using simplified versions
Difference between 'stomach' and 'uterus'
Does an unattuned Frost Brand weapon still glow in freezing temperatures?
Graphing random points on the XY-plane
How to kill a localhost:8080
Why are special aircraft used for the carriers in the united states navy?
How do you say "powers of ten"?
Is there a math equivalent to the conditional ternary operator?
Practical reasons to have both a large police force and bounty hunting network?
Is it possible to convert a suspension fork to rigid by drilling it?
Do higher etale homotopy groups of spectrum of a field always vanish?
Are paired adjectives bad style?
What are the issues with an additional (limited) concentration slot instead of Bladesong?
Where is the fallacy here?
“Change” last forever? If not what fallacy breaks the chain of reasoning shown here?What is the fallacy where you completely discredit someone because of a single mistake?Does the Fallacy Fallacy make logic useless?Rhetorical fallacy to fill lack of scientific evidence with superstitionWhat are the arguments for and against “one true arithmetic”?Alternate form of “all x are y”What is, and isn't the appeal to emotion logical fallacy?The Euthyphro Dilemma (complete philosophy newbie here)Universe as a container; Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?What fallacy is assuming something is the case because of past events
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
New contributor
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
New contributor
5
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
23 hours ago
1
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
22 hours ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
22 hours ago
3
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
21 hours 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
New contributor
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
New contributor
New contributor
edited 22 hours ago
brilliant
New contributor
asked 23 hours ago
brilliantbrilliant
12815
12815
New contributor
New contributor
5
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
23 hours ago
1
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
22 hours ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
22 hours ago
3
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
21 hours ago
add a comment |
5
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
23 hours ago
1
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
22 hours ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
22 hours ago
3
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
21 hours ago
5
5
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
23 hours ago
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
23 hours ago
1
1
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
22 hours ago
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
22 hours ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
22 hours ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
22 hours ago
3
3
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
21 hours 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
21 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
It appears that you are treating "is" as an equality operator. There are contexts where "is" denotes equality ("one plus one is two"), but in other cases where it denotes something else, such as subset ("cats are mammals") or attribute ("cats are furry"). If we replace "cats being born in the world" with "A", "natural" with "B", and "rabbits being born in the world" with "B", then your argument is "A is B, C is not A, therefore C is not B." If "is" is denoting equality, then this would be a valid argument. But the first and last "is" are denoting attribute. The argument "Cats are furry, dogs are not cats, therefore dogs are not furry" would be a shorter version of this fallacy. Or "five is prime, seven is not five, therefore seven is not prime".
This can be seen as an equivocation fallacy (using "is" in different sense), denying the antecedent (we have the true statement "if C were A, then C would be B", and you're denying the antecedent "C is A" to negate the conclusion), false dichotomy (the argument boils down to claiming that everything is either A or not B).
2
This type of pun is common to many trick questions and other nonsense, e.g. "No man is an island. Time waits for no man. Therefore, time waits for an island".
– Barmar
6 hours 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,
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
21 hours ago
@brilliant Yes. See my comment to your original question.
– Mark Andrews
19 hours ago
1
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.
– Shufflepants
19 hours 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
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.
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours 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
21 hours ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
21 hours 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.
New contributor
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
22 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
22 hours ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
But the general point is that says "cats being born is normal" does not mean "cats being born is the only normal phenomenon".
– Barmar
6 hours ago
add a comment |
The conclusion reads #3 as "Only the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural".
Alternatively "is" in this case means "has the attribute of being" or "is a type of", not "is equal to".
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
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It appears that you are treating "is" as an equality operator. There are contexts where "is" denotes equality ("one plus one is two"), but in other cases where it denotes something else, such as subset ("cats are mammals") or attribute ("cats are furry"). If we replace "cats being born in the world" with "A", "natural" with "B", and "rabbits being born in the world" with "B", then your argument is "A is B, C is not A, therefore C is not B." If "is" is denoting equality, then this would be a valid argument. But the first and last "is" are denoting attribute. The argument "Cats are furry, dogs are not cats, therefore dogs are not furry" would be a shorter version of this fallacy. Or "five is prime, seven is not five, therefore seven is not prime".
This can be seen as an equivocation fallacy (using "is" in different sense), denying the antecedent (we have the true statement "if C were A, then C would be B", and you're denying the antecedent "C is A" to negate the conclusion), false dichotomy (the argument boils down to claiming that everything is either A or not B).
2
This type of pun is common to many trick questions and other nonsense, e.g. "No man is an island. Time waits for no man. Therefore, time waits for an island".
– Barmar
6 hours ago
add a comment |
It appears that you are treating "is" as an equality operator. There are contexts where "is" denotes equality ("one plus one is two"), but in other cases where it denotes something else, such as subset ("cats are mammals") or attribute ("cats are furry"). If we replace "cats being born in the world" with "A", "natural" with "B", and "rabbits being born in the world" with "B", then your argument is "A is B, C is not A, therefore C is not B." If "is" is denoting equality, then this would be a valid argument. But the first and last "is" are denoting attribute. The argument "Cats are furry, dogs are not cats, therefore dogs are not furry" would be a shorter version of this fallacy. Or "five is prime, seven is not five, therefore seven is not prime".
This can be seen as an equivocation fallacy (using "is" in different sense), denying the antecedent (we have the true statement "if C were A, then C would be B", and you're denying the antecedent "C is A" to negate the conclusion), false dichotomy (the argument boils down to claiming that everything is either A or not B).
2
This type of pun is common to many trick questions and other nonsense, e.g. "No man is an island. Time waits for no man. Therefore, time waits for an island".
– Barmar
6 hours ago
add a comment |
It appears that you are treating "is" as an equality operator. There are contexts where "is" denotes equality ("one plus one is two"), but in other cases where it denotes something else, such as subset ("cats are mammals") or attribute ("cats are furry"). If we replace "cats being born in the world" with "A", "natural" with "B", and "rabbits being born in the world" with "B", then your argument is "A is B, C is not A, therefore C is not B." If "is" is denoting equality, then this would be a valid argument. But the first and last "is" are denoting attribute. The argument "Cats are furry, dogs are not cats, therefore dogs are not furry" would be a shorter version of this fallacy. Or "five is prime, seven is not five, therefore seven is not prime".
This can be seen as an equivocation fallacy (using "is" in different sense), denying the antecedent (we have the true statement "if C were A, then C would be B", and you're denying the antecedent "C is A" to negate the conclusion), false dichotomy (the argument boils down to claiming that everything is either A or not B).
It appears that you are treating "is" as an equality operator. There are contexts where "is" denotes equality ("one plus one is two"), but in other cases where it denotes something else, such as subset ("cats are mammals") or attribute ("cats are furry"). If we replace "cats being born in the world" with "A", "natural" with "B", and "rabbits being born in the world" with "B", then your argument is "A is B, C is not A, therefore C is not B." If "is" is denoting equality, then this would be a valid argument. But the first and last "is" are denoting attribute. The argument "Cats are furry, dogs are not cats, therefore dogs are not furry" would be a shorter version of this fallacy. Or "five is prime, seven is not five, therefore seven is not prime".
This can be seen as an equivocation fallacy (using "is" in different sense), denying the antecedent (we have the true statement "if C were A, then C would be B", and you're denying the antecedent "C is A" to negate the conclusion), false dichotomy (the argument boils down to claiming that everything is either A or not B).
answered 7 hours ago
AcccumulationAcccumulation
72719
72719
2
This type of pun is common to many trick questions and other nonsense, e.g. "No man is an island. Time waits for no man. Therefore, time waits for an island".
– Barmar
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2
This type of pun is common to many trick questions and other nonsense, e.g. "No man is an island. Time waits for no man. Therefore, time waits for an island".
– Barmar
6 hours ago
2
2
This type of pun is common to many trick questions and other nonsense, e.g. "No man is an island. Time waits for no man. Therefore, time waits for an island".
– Barmar
6 hours ago
This type of pun is common to many trick questions and other nonsense, e.g. "No man is an island. Time waits for no man. Therefore, time waits for an island".
– Barmar
6 hours 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,
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
21 hours ago
@brilliant Yes. See my comment to your original question.
– Mark Andrews
19 hours ago
1
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.
– Shufflepants
19 hours 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,
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
21 hours ago
@brilliant Yes. See my comment to your original question.
– Mark Andrews
19 hours ago
1
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.
– Shufflepants
19 hours 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,
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,
edited 4 hours ago
GentlePurpleRain
1033
1033
answered 22 hours ago
Mark AndrewsMark Andrews
2,9101624
2,9101624
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
21 hours ago
@brilliant Yes. See my comment to your original question.
– Mark Andrews
19 hours ago
1
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.
– Shufflepants
19 hours ago
add a comment |
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
21 hours ago
@brilliant Yes. See my comment to your original question.
– Mark Andrews
19 hours ago
1
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.
– Shufflepants
19 hours ago
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
21 hours ago
Thank you. I guess your answer is fully applicable to the latest edits in my question, too, right?
– brilliant
21 hours ago
@brilliant Yes. See my comment to your original question.
– Mark Andrews
19 hours ago
@brilliant Yes. See my comment to your original question.
– Mark Andrews
19 hours ago
1
1
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.
– Shufflepants
19 hours ago
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.
– Shufflepants
19 hours 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
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
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
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 22 hours ago
Graham KempGraham Kemp
91618
91618
add a comment |
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.
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours 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
21 hours ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
21 hours 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.
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours 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
21 hours ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
21 hours 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.
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 22 hours ago
Lee Daniel CrockerLee Daniel Crocker
1,554512
1,554512
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours 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
21 hours ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
21 hours ago
add a comment |
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours 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
21 hours ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
21 hours ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours 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
21 hours 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
21 hours ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
21 hours ago
This is the same error, not the second one.
– brilliant
21 hours 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.
New contributor
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
22 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
22 hours ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
But the general point is that says "cats being born is normal" does not mean "cats being born is the only normal phenomenon".
– Barmar
6 hours 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.
New contributor
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
22 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
22 hours ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
But the general point is that says "cats being born is normal" does not mean "cats being born is the only normal phenomenon".
– Barmar
6 hours 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.
New contributor
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.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 23 hours ago
Jonah.PJonah.P
112
112
New contributor
New contributor
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
22 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
22 hours ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
But the general point is that says "cats being born is normal" does not mean "cats being born is the only normal phenomenon".
– Barmar
6 hours ago
add a comment |
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
22 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
22 hours ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
But the general point is that says "cats being born is normal" does not mean "cats being born is the only normal phenomenon".
– Barmar
6 hours ago
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
22 hours ago
I am not sure that point 3 is "all" cats are normal or "some" cats are normal.
– Frank Hubeny
22 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
22 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
22 hours ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
I did some editing to my question.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
But the general point is that says "cats being born is normal" does not mean "cats being born is the only normal phenomenon".
– Barmar
6 hours ago
But the general point is that says "cats being born is normal" does not mean "cats being born is the only normal phenomenon".
– Barmar
6 hours ago
add a comment |
The conclusion reads #3 as "Only the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural".
Alternatively "is" in this case means "has the attribute of being" or "is a type of", not "is equal to".
add a comment |
The conclusion reads #3 as "Only the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural".
Alternatively "is" in this case means "has the attribute of being" or "is a type of", not "is equal to".
add a comment |
The conclusion reads #3 as "Only the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural".
Alternatively "is" in this case means "has the attribute of being" or "is a type of", not "is equal to".
The conclusion reads #3 as "Only the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural".
Alternatively "is" in this case means "has the attribute of being" or "is a type of", not "is equal to".
answered 11 hours ago
colmdecolmde
25513
25513
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
5
Obviously not all cats are normal.
– Bread
23 hours ago
1
Assuming cats are normal: rabbits can also be normal without being cats.
– Bread
22 hours ago
@Bread - I did some edits.
– brilliant
22 hours ago
@brilliant My answer responds to your original post. I do not think that the edits change my answer.
– Mark Andrews
22 hours ago
3
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
21 hours ago