Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15

# What is this logic fallacy called?

 Posts: 317 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 12:25:20 AMPosted: 8 years agoAll Atlanta Hawk players are professional basketball players; therefore,All professional basketball players are Atlanta Hawks.What is this fallacy called? The first is true, but the second is not. I simply cannot remember the name.Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
 Posts: 6,457 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:00:42 AMPosted: 8 years agoHasty generalisation?It also has the form of undistributed middle though it is missing a step.
 Posts: 6,457 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:06:42 AMPosted: 8 years agoNot thinking of this are you?If P then QQtherefore PAffirming the consequent
 Posts: 7,776 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:08:34 AMPosted: 8 years agoComposition Fallacy?
 Posts: 6,457 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:10:38 AMPosted: 8 years agoAt 2/28/2010 1:08:34 AM, Nags wrote:Composition Fallacy?Not sure. I think in that case the error would be all basketball players are professional.
 Posts: 7,776 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:12:01 AMPosted: 8 years agoAt 2/28/2010 1:10:38 AM, Puck wrote:At 2/28/2010 1:08:34 AM, Nags wrote:Composition Fallacy?Not sure. I think in that case the error would be all basketball players are professional.Division Fallacy then?
 Posts: 12,253 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:13:32 AMPosted: 8 years agoAt 2/28/2010 1:06:42 AM, Puck wrote:Not thinking of this are you?If P then QQtherefore PAffirming the consequentYeah."We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic." -- Murray Rothbard "The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended." -- Frederic Bastiat
 Posts: 6,457 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:14:26 AMPosted: 8 years agoNaw, "All professional basketball players " is greater than "All Atlanta Hawk players".
 Posts: 317 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:39:20 AMPosted: 8 years agoAt 2/28/2010 1:14:26 AM, Puck wrote:Naw, "All professional basketball players " is greater than "All Atlanta Hawk players".Yea, that is it. One group is inclusive but the larger group is not the smaller group.Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
 Posts: 317 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:44:39 AMPosted: 8 years agoI am writing a paper and I wish to name the error, so I should just use it:Atheists support the theory of evolution; therefore,evolution supporters are atheists.this has tons of problems so that is why i used the basketball reference. All atheists do not support evolution (the theory of evolution in this case) and evolution has meaning outside of science and biology so i wish to avoid that discussion. I thought it was the mutually inclusive fallacy? I'm drunk so I may have made that fallacy up, but it seems like I have a book around here listing it. I need to work on my category system.Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
 Posts: 6,457 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:50:32 AMPosted: 8 years agoAt 2/28/2010 1:39:20 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:At 2/28/2010 1:14:26 AM, Puck wrote:Naw, "All professional basketball players " is greater than "All Atlanta Hawk players".Yea, that is it. One group is inclusive but the larger group is not the smaller group.Then it's compositional.These atheists support evolution, therefore all do.If you are trying to say Atheism =/= evolution then it's more a definitional issue however. Namely that what atheism is is very restricted in its definition.
 Posts: 317 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:52:32 AMPosted: 8 years agoNice,Thanks gang!Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
 Posts: 8,210 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 11:04:18 AMPosted: 8 years agoAt 2/28/2010 1:50:32 AM, Puck wrote:At 2/28/2010 1:39:20 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:At 2/28/2010 1:14:26 AM, Puck wrote:Naw, "All professional basketball players " is greater than "All Atlanta Hawk players".Yea, that is it. One group is inclusive but the larger group is not the smaller group.Then it's compositional.These atheists support evolution, therefore all do.If you are trying to say Atheism =/= evolution then it's more a definitional issue however. Namely that what atheism is is very restricted in its definition.It's not compositional. Compositional fallacy is saying that because I cannot see the atoms making up my desk, I cannot see my desk.It is Affirming the Consequent.If atlanta hawk player, then professional player..: All professional players are atlanta hawk players.Source:http://fallacyfiles.org...http://fallacyfiles.org...in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
 Posts: 4,113 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 12:03:52 PMPosted: 8 years agoAt 2/28/2010 1:44:39 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:I am writing a paper and I wish to name the error, so I should just use it:Atheists support the theory of evolution; therefore,evolution supporters are atheists.this has tons of problems so that is why i used the basketball reference. All atheists do not support evolution (the theory of evolution in this case) and evolution has meaning outside of science and biology so i wish to avoid that discussion. I thought it was the mutually inclusive fallacy? I'm drunk so I may have made that fallacy up, but it seems like I have a book around here listing it. I need to work on my category system.i think you wrote it in a confusing way. you're saying that some evolution supporters are atheists but that not all are?if so then its a hasty generalizationor are you saying all atheists support evolution therefore all who support evolution are atheists?i'm not even sure if thats a named fallacy lol....its similar to affirming the consequent but you're actually turning the whole conditional backwards and asserting it... :/evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
 Posts: 1,548 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 2/28/2010 1:04:16 PMPosted: 8 years agoCan't you just say that the converse isn't necessarily true?