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













5















Where is the fallacy here:




  1. whatever is natural is not unnatural


  2. whatever is unnatural is not natural


  3. the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural


  4. 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










share|improve this question









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.
















  • 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















Where is the fallacy here:




  1. whatever is natural is not unnatural


  2. whatever is unnatural is not natural


  3. the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural


  4. 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










share|improve this question









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.
















  • 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








5


2






Where is the fallacy here:




  1. whatever is natural is not unnatural


  2. whatever is unnatural is not natural


  3. the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural


  4. 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










share|improve this question









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:




  1. whatever is natural is not unnatural


  2. whatever is unnatural is not natural


  3. the phenomenon of cats being born into this world is natural


  4. 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






share|improve this question









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.











share|improve this question









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.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 22 hours ago







brilliant













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 23 hours ago









brilliantbrilliant

12815




12815




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.








  • 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





    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












6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















8














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).






share|improve this answer



















  • 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



















15














Here is the argument:




  1. No N is not-N.


  2. No not-N is N.


  3. All C are N.


  4. 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,






share|improve this answer


























  • 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



















6














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






share|improve this answer































    2














    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.






    share|improve this answer
























    • 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



















    1














    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.






    share|improve this answer








    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
      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



















    1














    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".






    share|improve this answer























      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.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      8














      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).






      share|improve this answer



















      • 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
















      8














      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).






      share|improve this answer



















      • 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














      8












      8








      8







      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).






      share|improve this answer













      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).







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      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














      • 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











      15














      Here is the argument:




      1. No N is not-N.


      2. No not-N is N.


      3. All C are N.


      4. 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,






      share|improve this answer


























      • 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
















      15














      Here is the argument:




      1. No N is not-N.


      2. No not-N is N.


      3. All C are N.


      4. 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,






      share|improve this answer


























      • 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














      15












      15








      15







      Here is the argument:




      1. No N is not-N.


      2. No not-N is N.


      3. All C are N.


      4. 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,






      share|improve this answer















      Here is the argument:




      1. No N is not-N.


      2. No not-N is N.


      3. All C are N.


      4. 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,







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      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



















      • 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











      6














      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






      share|improve this answer




























        6














        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






        share|improve this answer


























          6












          6








          6







          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






          share|improve this answer













          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







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 22 hours ago









          Graham KempGraham Kemp

          91618




          91618























              2














              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.






              share|improve this answer
























              • 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
















              2














              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.






              share|improve this answer
























              • 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














              2












              2








              2







              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.






              share|improve this answer













              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              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



















              • 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











              1














              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.






              share|improve this answer








              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
                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
















              1














              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.






              share|improve this answer








              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
                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














              1












              1








              1







              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.






              share|improve this answer








              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.







              share|improve this answer








              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.









              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer






              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 23 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
                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











              • 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











              1














              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".






              share|improve this answer




























                1














                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".






                share|improve this answer


























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  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".






                  share|improve this answer













                  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".







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 11 hours ago









                  colmdecolmde

                  25513




                  25513






















                      brilliant is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      VNC viewer RFB protocol error: bad desktop size 0x0I Cannot Type the Key 'd' (lowercase) in VNC Viewer...

                      Couldn't open a raw socket. Error: Permission denied (13) (nmap)Is it possible to run networking commands...

                      Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll? Announcing the arrival of...