Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,15 (click to see context) from:
!! '''[[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/exclprem.html Two Negative Premises]]''':
:: If A is not B, and B is not C, then A is C. This is always invalid logic (although it may happen to be true), as it is not possible to make a valid conclusion from two negative premises; logic is not arithmetic. This is a fallacy because simply identifying what something ''isn't'' doesn't identify what it ''is''.
-->No Jews are Muslims.
-->No Muslims are Christians.
-->Therefore Jews are Christians.
--> No dogs are reptiles.
--> No reptiles are magenta.
--> Dogs are magenta.
--> No dogs are reptiles.
--> No reptiles shoot lasers out of their eyes.
--> Dogs shoot lasers out of their eyes.
:: If A is not B, and B is not C, then A is C. This is always invalid logic (although it may happen to be true), as it is not possible to make a valid conclusion from two negative premises; logic is not arithmetic. This is a fallacy because simply identifying what something ''isn't'' doesn't identify what it ''is''.
-->No Jews are Muslims.
-->No Muslims are Christians.
-->Therefore Jews are Christians.
--> No dogs are reptiles.
--> No reptiles are magenta.
--> Dogs are magenta.
--> No dogs are reptiles.
--> No reptiles shoot lasers out of their eyes.
--> Dogs shoot lasers out of their eyes.
to:
:: If A is not B, and B is not C, then A is C. This is always invalid logic (although it may happen to be true), as it is not possible to make a valid conclusion from two negative premises; logic is not arithmetic. This is a fallacy because simply identifying what something ''isn't'' doesn't identify what it ''is''.
-->No Jews are Muslims.
-->No Muslims are Christians.
-->Therefore Jews are Christians.
--> No dogs are reptiles.
--> No reptiles are magenta.
--> Dogs are magenta.
--> No dogs are reptiles.
--> No reptiles shoot lasers out of their eyes.
--> Dogs shoot lasers out of their eyes.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 16,25 (click to see context) :
Well, how about:
--> No crow is a stone.
--> No stone has wings.
--> Therefore, crows have wings.
* that's called a [[FallacyFallacy Fallacy Fallacy]]
Which could just as easily be:
--> No dog is a stone.
--> No stone has wings.
--> Therefore, dogs have wings.
--> No crow is a stone.
--> No stone has wings.
--> Therefore, crows have wings.
* that's called a [[FallacyFallacy Fallacy Fallacy]]
Which could just as easily be:
--> No dog is a stone.
--> No stone has wings.
--> Therefore, dogs have wings.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 20 (click to see context) from:
to:
* that's called a [[FallacyFallacy Fallacy Fallacy]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
--> No dogs are reptiles.
--> No reptiles shoot lasers out of their eyes.
--> Dogs shoot lasers out of their eyes.
--> No reptiles shoot lasers out of their eyes.
--> Dogs shoot lasers out of their eyes.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2,3 (click to see context) from:
:: If A is not B, and B is not C, then A is C. This is always invalid logic (although it may happen to be true), as it is not possible to make a valid conclusion from two negative premises; logic is not arithmetic.
to:
:: If A is not B, and B is not C, then A is C. This is always invalid logic (although it may happen to be true), as it is not possible to make a valid conclusion from two negative premises; logic is not arithmetic.
arithmetic. This is a fallacy because simply identifying what something ''isn't'' doesn't identify what it ''is''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
--> Therefore, crows have wings.
to:
--> Therefore, crows have wings.
Which could just as easily be:
--> No dog is a stone.
--> No stone has wings.
--> Therefore, dogs have wings.
Which could just as easily be:
--> No dog is a stone.
--> No stone has wings.
--> Therefore, dogs have wings.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Exception?
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
--> Dogs are magenta.
to:
--> Dogs are magenta.magenta.
Well, how about:
--> No crow is a stone.
--> No stone has wings.
--> Therefore, crows have wings.
Well, how about:
--> No crow is a stone.
--> No stone has wings.
--> Therefore, crows have wings.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Grammar.
Changed line(s) 2,3 (click to see context) from:
:: If A is not B, and B is not C, then A is C. This is always invalid logic (although it may happen to be true), it is not possible to make a valid conclusion from two negative premises, logic is not arithmetic.
to:
:: If A is not B, and B is not C, then A is C. This is always invalid logic (although it may happen to be true), as it is not possible to make a valid conclusion from two negative premises, premises; logic is not arithmetic.
