I forget the vocab term that I was taught first semester of 2016-2017

Forums: Vocabulary
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It's hard to explain, but I believe an example of it is like this. "Birds fly, and so do planes, therefore planes are birds". I believe that fits what I'm trying the find. Thank you, hope everyone's summer is going well if you're on break.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,487 • Replies: 20

[+3] - perennialloner - 06/09/2017It's not true! I genuinely think you're wrong a lot. Sometimes its not that i think youre wrong, i just have questions, too many questions. I've agreed with you before, I think. [url]...

@Dts888,

Dts888 wrote:

It's hard to explain, but I believe an example of it is like this. "Birds fly, and so do planes, therefore planes are birds". I believe that fits what I'm trying the find. Thank you, hope everyone's summer is going well if you're on break.

It's a formal logical fallacy, which no doubt has a technical name (such as "undistributed middle"), but offhand I can't think of any "vocab" term for it. What do you mean by "vocab?"

0 Replies

@Dts888,

I don't think this is it, but maybe tautology, as a rhetorical strategy?

0 Replies

@Dts888,

Dts888 wrote:

It's hard to explain, but I believe an example of it is like this. "Birds fly, and so do planes, therefore planes are birds". I believe that fits what I'm trying the find. Thank you, hope everyone's summer is going well if you're on break.

If you ignore the "chain of reasoning" aspect, and just reduce it to something like "planes are birds," I guess you would just call it a "metaphor." Is that what you're looking for?

0 Replies

@Dts888,

Non sequitor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Quote:

Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur

If A is true, then B is true.
B is true.
Therefore, A is true.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Non sequitor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Quote:
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur

If A is true, then B is true.
B is true.
Therefore, A is true.

No, that's not a "non sequitur." Every invalid logical argument is, in a broad sense, a non sequitur, but it is usually applied in more particular circumstances.

I believe the common name of the fallacy you have presented is "affirming the consequent," which follows that particular form which you used to illustrate your claim.

Usually the term "non sequitur" is applied when someone makes a response to an argument or proposition that doesn't even pretend to be a product of logical reasoning. It is simply a totally irrelevant, "off the wall," response, which pertains to nothing under discussion (although the one offering it may erroneously think otherwise).

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur

If A is true, then B is true.
B is true.
Therefore, A is true.

Even if the premise and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.

Taken from the same wikipedia page. The page specifies it's talking about non- sequitur in the logical sense.

2 Replies

@perennialloner,

I didn't look at any wiki page, Perry, but I'll take your word for it. That's what I said, right?

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Every invalid logical argument is, in a broad sense, a non sequitur, but it is usually applied in more particular circumstances....Usually the term "non sequitur" is applied when someone makes a response to an argument or proposition that doesn't even pretend to be a product of logical reasoning. It is simply a totally irrelevant, "off the wall," response, which pertains to nothing under discussion (although the one offering it may erroneously think otherwise).

Quote:

Definition of non sequitur

a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said: "We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur

0 Replies

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

Taken from the same wikipedia page. The page specifies it's talking about non- sequitur in the logical sense.

Now I'm really confused. I don't see anything at all on the wiki page Beth linked which says what you posted. All it says (regarding logic) is "Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise and therefore the conclusion is arbitrary."

1 Reply

@layman,

That is a "disambiguation" page, I see, so I went to the linked page from it. It too says what I just said. It lists, later, a number of formal logical fallacies, BY NAME, of which "affirming the consequence" just happens to be the first (alphabetically).

But the explanation of the term "non sequitur" given before it explicitly says:

Quote:

...the word 'non sequitur' is typically used to refer to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute logical fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g. affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, 'non sequitur' is used to refer to an unnamed logical fallacy. Often, in fact, 'non sequitur' is used when an irrelevancy is showing up in the conclusion.

So it says that "affirming the consequent" is a "named fallacy" and is therefore NOT one that is generally referred to as a "non sequitur," right?

1 Reply

@layman,

I just think ehbeth is right based on what I linked. Affirming the consequent is a type of non sequitur? Your first sentence in response to her was no, thats not a non sequitur.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

I just think ehbeth is right based on what I linked. Affirming the consequent is a type of non sequitur? Your first sentence in response to her was no, thats not a non sequitur.

Well, you're entitled to think that all you want. Apparently you didn't really read the page she (indirectly) cited too closely (nor did she). I have already pointed out the oversight and error that both of you made. You can read my post on that or not, as you choose. Suit yourself.

And, by the way, I did ALSO say (which you ignore), at the very outset, that in a broad sense EVERY invalid logical argument is a "non sequitur."

In every thread we're in, you seem quite eager to find somehing, anything, wrong with my posts, it seems. Even to the point where you ignore all contrary evidence.

What's up with that, I wonder?

1 Reply

@layman,

It's not true! I genuinely think you're wrong a lot. Sometimes its not that i think youre wrong, i just have questions, too many questions. I've agreed with you before, I think. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

This is where I found the quote I provided. Maybe I am missing something, but I cant see it.

And I didnt ignore what you said, I just recognized that you were only saying it to undermine the usage of non sequitur ehbeth put forward in her post.

2 Replies

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

And I didnt ignore what you said, I just recognized that you were only saying it to undermine the usage of non sequitur ehbeth put forward in her post.

Sorry, you didn't "recognize" anything of the sort. I certainly wasn't "only" saying it to dispute her.

I was trying to enlighten her, and, as it turns out, you, about the actual useage. As far as the very particular portion of the wiki page you selectively cited goes, it is so ambiguous as to be completely wrong. It tends to contradict what it just said itself.

Furthermore, when it says "any argument" it is referring to ALL the arguments that follow, not just the first one.

The part that you and she selectively quoted would leave one with the impression that ONLY arguments which adhere to the "affirming the consequent" pattern are "non sequiturs." That would be totally misleading and in fact just plain WRONG. You're not reading in context, I'm afraid--presumably because you are simply trying to refute, not understand.

Read the dictionary definition I quoted too. I would hope you, and Beth, could come away from this all with a better feel for how the term "non sequitur" is used in the English language.

It is NOT generally used to refer to an invalid argument taking the form of "affirming the consequent" and certainly NEVER to refer ONLY to that.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
This is where I found the quote I provided. Maybe I am missing something, but I cant see it.

The format of this page is different from what I usually see on wiki, but it's saying the same thing as the other, and has the same passage I have quoted from.

Read the introductory paragraph (all of) it carefully. Re-read it if it's not clear. If you do that, I have confidence that you can grasp the simple point I made in my first post (which you might want to also read completely, just to understand EVERYTHING I said).

I simply pointed out exactly what this paragraph ends up saying too.

Quote:

he word 'non sequitur' is typically used to refer to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute logical fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g. affirming the consequent)

The part in parentheses (e.g. affirming the consequent) is given as an example of what "non sequitur" is NOT used to refer to, get it?

"Affirming the consequent" is a NAMED fallacy, and hence one that "non sequitur" is NOT used to refer to, generally, even if it is, in a broad sense, a logical fallacy.

0 Replies

@layman,

I know how non sequitur is usually used. This was news to me. You seem to be telling me that I cant read or that I have taken what ive used to justify my original claim out of context. However, I did not read it as you did for whatever reason. it was clear to me that non sequitur was an umbrella term for a number of types of logical fallacy. In the first quote I posted, I italicized the sentence that stated "this sort of non sequitur" to me that indicated that affirming the consequent was not the only type of non sequitur and that, in fact, there are many types which I did not show in the quote because I thought it was unnecessary.

Can we at least agree that affirming the consequent may be the term the OP is looking for?

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

Can we at least agree that affirming the consequent may be the term the OP is looking for?

No, not really. I don't think that could conceivably be the term he is looking for, although it's always possible, I suppose. This is not the reason I say it, but the sentence he composed is NOT even an example of "affirming the consequent."

Look at the part I just added (again) to my last post. I'm thinking that may be where you and I are reading the passage differently.

I acknowledged, in my first post, that the form used by Beth could, literally and technically, be called a "non sequitur." That's just not the way it's used.

1 Reply

@layman,

I didn't mention it at the time, but I don't think "tautology" could possibly be what he's looking for either. In fact that post appeared to me to completely misunderstand what a "tautology" is.

In fact I might go so far as to say that, in light of the sentence he presented, bring up a "tautology" constituted a non sequitur.

1 Reply

@layman,

I know its not technically what a tautology is. It just reminds me of a tautology in the sense that tautologies often aim to propose an idea by obscuring the lack of valid reasoning which would be required to back it up.

I knew it was a stretch, or just wrong, but I did say I dont think it's it.

0 Replies

I forget the vocab term that I was taught first semester of 2016-2017

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know