|
Post by The Dark Master on Apr 25, 2009 7:23:59 GMT -5
Ah, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Randomness on May 6, 2009 11:33:18 GMT -5
Thats awsome... clever.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on May 6, 2009 15:13:34 GMT -5
No, logical fallacies are not supposed to be awesome and clever: they are horrid lapses of logic that ought to be avoided at nearly all costs!
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on May 6, 2009 16:46:53 GMT -5
Unless you're a straw man!
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on May 17, 2009 4:46:52 GMT -5
Here is a fallacy ( or is it to similiar to a previous one? i'm not sure):
If event A happens, there will be no event B. Therefore, If Event A does not happen there will be an event B.
Not sure how to explain it or what its called.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on May 17, 2009 19:08:25 GMT -5
That would be simple math logic abuse. That assumes that, given a true conditional, the inverse will always be true. It could be, but one would have to prove it.
Given a true conditional, on the other hand, the contrapositive will always be true: no proof is necessary.
True conditional implies true contrapositive. True converse implies true inverse. True inverse implies true converse. True contrapositive implies true conditional.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on May 18, 2009 20:42:21 GMT -5
D*** it! GV beat me to defining the conditional logic.
|
|
|
Post by secret not logged on Jun 2, 2009 9:21:51 GMT -5
No news is a type of news Non-existence is a type of existence Therefore there is no such thing as "non existence"
What fallacy is this?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Jun 2, 2009 10:38:25 GMT -5
Are you sure its even a fallacy?
|
|
|
Post by Mohamad Abd Al Raman on Aug 6, 2009 6:10:39 GMT -5
This is good welldone
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Aug 14, 2009 8:06:32 GMT -5
Here is a fallacy ( or is it to similiar to a previous one? i'm not sure): If event A happens, there will be no event B. Therefore, If Event A does not happen there will be an event B. Not sure how to explain it or what its called. I was taught that it was called converse error.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 15, 2009 21:26:35 GMT -5
Converse error, or inverse error?
Technically, that goes hand-in-hand with the conditional logic I mentioned nearly a quarter of a year (six posts) earlier...
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Aug 16, 2009 1:13:49 GMT -5
Isn't that a two month bump I see raman?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Aug 16, 2009 3:28:02 GMT -5
They don't count on debate threads Memzak...
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Aug 19, 2009 23:10:18 GMT -5
Converse error: All A is B, therefore all B is A.
Inverse error: All A is B, therefore all not-A is not-B
BTW:
If anyone calls the slippery slope fallacy on this sentence, they might start using it to justify rape and murder! And if you call the ad hominem fallacy on this statement, it's probably because you're a moron.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 19, 2009 23:26:18 GMT -5
[jk]May I play my favorite one, the Hitler Card?[/jk]
The "converse error" and "inverse error" aren't necessarily always errors, it just means that you still have to prove one of them true. For example, the 30-60-90 Triangle Theorem states that if the sides of a right triangle are of lengths (in increasing order) x, 31/2x, and 2x, then the triangle has angles 30 degrees, 60 degrees, and 90 degrees. The converse of that (if the triangle is 30-60-90, then it has lengths x, 31/2x, and 2x) is not implied as automatically true, but it turns out that you can prove that statement true. I know, because I had to prove the converse true in order to proceed with my own theorem concerning 30-60-90 triangles...
It is erring to assume that a converse is automatically true without a separate proof when a condition is true (or false if the condition is false): if you can prove that it is true, then there is no problem.
The same goes for conditionals and inverses...
|
|
Buggy793
Legendary Member
{S=6}One Fish, Two Fish. Red Fish, Blue Fish.[M:-793]
I never pronounce names wrong. People just want them mispronounced for some reason.
Posts: 815
|
Post by Buggy793 on Sept 21, 2009 21:14:27 GMT -5
I have a better one for circular reasoning. A tyrannosaurus rex looks like this, because it should look like this, therefore, it looks like this. Yeah, I know, it's not great, but personally I think it's an improvement. (No offense) Feel free to switch tyrannosaurus rex out with something else, like Java Man.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Sept 21, 2009 21:49:42 GMT -5
Alright, I changed it by using "energy" instead of Tyrannosaurus rex as the subject of argument.
Added: Appeal to Tradition
|
|