Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

What is this logic fallacy called?

sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:25:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
All 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.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:10:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
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.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:12:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 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?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:13:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 1:06:42 AM, Puck wrote:
Not thinking of this are you?

If P then Q
Q
therefore P

Affirming the consequent

Yeah.
"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
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:39:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
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.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:44:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
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.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 1:50:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
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.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 11:04:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 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
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:03:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 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 generalization

or 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...