|
Which error is this?
|
I wasn’t exactly sure which sub forum to put this in.
Which formal structural error is this? Is it still considered Affirming the Consequent if they’re using negations of p and q in the second premise? ![[Image: 945-A4-E0-F-80-E0-428-F-8977-D3-AF4446-D960.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/98ZM4Vm/945-A4-E0-F-80-E0-428-F-8977-D3-AF4446-D960.jpg)
 (January 1, 2022 at 11:37 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I wasn’t exactly sure which sub forum to put this in. P1 If !p then !q P2 Q P3 Therefore p I don't know what formal structural error this is,. It it's a non sequitur. Even if we accept P1 as true, it does not logically follow. 
The error is thor, Replace it with FSM and it's factually correct.
Thanks for asking.
"For the only way to eternal glory is a life lived in service of our Lord, FSM; Verily it is FSM who is the perfect being the name higher than all names, king of all kings and will bestow upon us all, one day, The great reclaiming" -The Prophet Boiardi-
Conservative trigger warning.
![[Image: s-l640.jpg]](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/DjAAAOSwpIhe1HCM/s-l640.jpg)  RE: Which error is this?
January 2, 2022 at 12:06 am
(This post was last modified: January 2, 2022 at 12:13 am by Rev. Rye.)
Sounds like an inverted Modus Tollens, or affirming the consequent.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png) I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad. 
Here's one.
If God did not exist Religions wouldn't exist. Religions do exist! People are stupid 
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear. 
The premise is wrong. Any "logic" after that is wrong. You're pulling our collective legs, right? I've seen you do some logical stunners around here, is why I ask.
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
I suspected that a false premise was the problem here, but, somehow, I had to ask myself “surely that’s not the sole problem here. There has to be a more fundamental problem here.” Unfortunately, it may actually just be that simple. Maybe that’s why the closest thing I could find to an example is ‘an inverted modus tollens.’ The logic itself is sound. The initial premise, however, is invalid and easily deniable.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad. RE: Which error is this?
January 2, 2022 at 1:19 am
(This post was last modified: January 2, 2022 at 1:20 am by LadyForCamus.)
(January 2, 2022 at 12:30 am)Fireball Wrote: The premise is wrong. Any "logic" after that is wrong. You're pulling our collective legs, right? I've seen you do some logical stunners around here, is why I ask. I’m trying to pin point the structural problem with it since it’s written as a formal deductive argument. I just want to make sure that when I’m calling out a logical error, I’m calling out the correct error. Obviously it’s not sound, lol. 😛
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken. (January 2, 2022 at 12:51 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: I suspected that a false premise was the problem here, but, somehow, I had to ask myself “surely that’s not the sole problem here. There has to be a more fundamental problem here.” Unfortunately, it may actually just be that simple. Maybe that’s why the closest thing I could find to an example is ‘an inverted modus tollens.’ The logic itself is sound. The initial premise, however, is invalid and easily deniable. It appears to be some combination of affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. The logic definitely isn’t sound. 😛
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
