History Main / FourTermsFallacy

[[quoteright:281:[[EverythingsBetterWithPenguins http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/3912.jpg]]]]

->''I live by syllogisms: God is love. Love is blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God. I don't know what I'd believe in if it wasn't for that.''

** Garfield has a similar philosophy. "If nobody is perfect, I must be nobody."

* In ''MuchAdoAboutNothing'', this exchange between [[BelligerentSexualTension Benedick and Beatrice]]:
-->'''Beatrice''': And yet, ere I go, let me go with that I came; which is, with knowing what hath passed between you and Claudio.\\
'''Benedick''': Only foul words; and thereupon I will kiss thee.\\
'''Beatrice''': Foul words is but foul wind, and foul wind is but foul breath, and foul breath is noisome; therefore I will depart unkissed.

* In [[http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html this]] OrderOfTheStick, the Empress is committing the Four Terms fallacy by using "grown larger" in two different senses: Dragons that are more powerful have grown larger (as a result of age), so she thinks that if she grows larger (by eating more and getting fat) that she will also be more powerful. That's not the only fallacy involved in her reasoning, either.

--> You are all the world to me, therefor you love me

Also called the Politician's Syllogism.

* The StephenColbert quote at the top of the page is an example of such a fallacy.

A standard three-step syllogism uses three terms -- the things that are being linked by the line of reasoning. If A, then B. If B, then C. Therefore if A, then C. The fallacy of four terms occurs when, [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin exactly like it says]] ''four'' terms are used instead of three. In most cases, a single term is used two (or more) times, in differing contexts with different meanings; and yet the argument treats the two usages as exactly the same, since the same term was used.

* The [[GenocidalManiac Heys]] in ''TheTick'' worship Nothing, as outlined in translation from their PokemonSpeak: "Nothing lasts forever. Nothing is worth fighting for."

** Similarly, Anadin pain pills used to be marketed with the slogan "Nothing acts faster than Anadin", prompting the zinger "So take nothing - it's cheaper".

Using a standard 3-step proof-of-concept to prove your theory, but including one unconnected tenet which breaks the line of reasoning. Results from equivocation -- that is, a single term is used two (or more) times, in differing contexts with different meanings; and yet the argument treats the two usages as exactly the same, since the same term was used. It's best explained by this example from ''LandOfTheBlind.''

** To be fair to politicians, this argument could be sound if you were sufficiently cynical - a politician might prefer to be seen to be doing ''anything'' about a problem, regardless of whether its a solution or not.

--> The four terms here are 1: "it is not in a glass case" 2: "I can (am physically able to) touch it", 3: "I can (am permitted to) touch it" and 4: "I will touch it". If 1 is true, then 2 is true; if 3 is true, then 4 is true. What's missing is the necessary step establishing either that 2 and 3 are the same (they aren't), or, that if 2 is true, 3 is true as well (it isn't).
** Bad example of physically able to = can = am permitted to. Most museums put stuff in cases when they don't want visitors to touch them and vice-versa.
** Also lacking is the connection between "I can (am permitted to) touch it" and "I will touch it." Just because you ''can'' doesn't mean that you either ''will'' or ''have'' to touch it.
*** That really depends. The British Museum for example keeps a great number of statues and stone tablets uncased, for example. Cases are mostly reserved for really fragile items.
** Better example, Visitors to NASA mission control. NASA cannot put the instruments in glass cases, because they are using the instruments, so they would need staff to stop visitors touching stuff.

Also called the Politician's Syllogism and the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.

[[EverythingsBetterWithPenguins http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/3912.jpg]]

->-- '''StephenColbert''', ''TheColbertReport''

!!! Also called
* The Politician's Syllogism, The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.

:: Using a standard 3-step proof-of-concept to prove your theory, but including one unconnected tenet which breaks the line of reasoning. Results from equivocation -- that is, a single term is used two (or more) times, in differing contexts with different meanings; and yet the argument treats the two usages as exactly the same, since the same term was used. It's best explained by this example from ''LandOfTheBlind.''

-->A dry crust of bread is better than nothing\\

:: This uses two different meanings of the word "nothing." The first line uses "nothing" to mean "a lack of food", while the second line uses "nothing" as "no such thing exists."

!!!Examples:

** Bad example of physically able to = can = am permitted to. Most museums put stuff in cases when they don't want visitors to touch them and vice-versa.

* The four terms here are 1: "it is not in a glass case" 2: "I can (am physically able to) touch it", 3: "I can (am permitted to) touch it" and 4: "I will touch it". If 1 is true, then 2 is true; if 3 is true, then 4 is true. What's missing is the necessary step establishing either that 2 and 3 are the same (they aren't), or, that if 2 is true, 3 is true as well (it isn't).

* In a museum, an employee sees a patron tapping on one of the replicas with his fist. Employee: "Sir, please don't touch that." Patron: "But it's a replica, isn't it?" Employee: "Yes, it is, but we still ask for you not to touch it." Patron: "Well, it's not under a glass case, which means it's not valuable. I have every right to touch it." Employer: "No, actually-" Patron: "Yes, if I see something that's not cased, it means I can touch it, AND I WILL TOUCH IT!" The four terms here are 1: "it is not in a glass case" 2: "I can (am physically able to) touch it", 3: "I can (am permitted to) touch it" and 4: "I will touch it". If 1 is true, then 2 is true; if 3 is true, then 4 is true. What's missing is the necessary step establishing either that 2 and 3 are the same (they aren't), or, that if 2 is true, 3 is true as well (it isn't).

** Bad example of physically able to = can = am permitted to. Most museums put stuff in cases when they don't want visitors to touch them and vice-versa.

:: Using a standard 3-step proof-of-concept to prove your theory, but including one unconnected tenet which breaks the line of reasoning. Results from equivocation. It's best explained by this example from ''LandOfTheBlind.''

* The Politician's Syllogism

* RealLife Example: In a museum, an employee sees a patron tapping on one of the replicas with his fist. Employee: "Sir, please don't touch that." Patron: "But it's a replica, isn't it?" Employee: "Yes, it is, but we still ask for you not to touch it." Patron: "Well, it's not under a glass case, which means it's not valuable. I have every right to touch it." Employer: "No, actually-" Patron: "Yes, if I see something that's not cased, it means I can touch it, AND I WILL TOUCH IT!" The four terms here are 1: "it is not in a glass case" 2: "I can (am physically able to) touch it", 3: "I can (am permitted to) touch it" and 4: "I will touch it". If 1 is true, then 2 is true; if 3 is true, then 4 is true. What's missing is the necessary step establishing either that 2 and 3 are the same (they aren't), or, that if 2 is true, 3 is true as well (it isn't).

** Garfield has a similar philosophy. "If nobody is perfect, I must be nobody."

* There's an old joke revolving around the word ''nothing'', similar to the example above, where a bar patron turns down a beer from the bartender because "nothing is better than a cold drink".