Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

What logical fallacy is this?

girg
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 1:24:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So I saw this statement awhile ago, and I cannot decide what kind of logical fallacy the following statement would be.
Statement:
Potatoes have skin.
I have skin,
ergo, I am a potato.

Any ideas?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 1:30:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
equivocation fallacy
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 1:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 1:30:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
equivocation fallacy
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 1:38:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even if the term "skin" was used appropriately in both premises, it'd still be fallacious. Consider:

Cats have skin.
I have skin.
Ergo I am a cat.

So I'm not sure "equivocation" is the most correct answer.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 1:43:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 1:24:25 PM, girg wrote:
So I saw this statement awhile ago, and I cannot decide what kind of logical fallacy the following statement would be.
Statement:
Potatoes have skin.
I have skin,
ergo, I am a potato.

Any ideas?

the conclusion also doesn't follow. You need to premise to be, "Only potatoes can have skin". I don't know of a fallacy that addresses that
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 1:50:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Composition.

- Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
- Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 2:37:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 1:50:16 PM, Ren wrote:
Composition.

- Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
- Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

Nah, that only applies when you're composing things into a whole. Like, "atoms don't think; people are composed of atoms; therefore, atoms don't think". That's not the form this has.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 2:38:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 2:37:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/3/2012 1:50:16 PM, Ren wrote:
Composition.

- Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
- Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

Nah, that only applies when you're composing things into a whole. Like, "atoms don't think; people are composed of atoms; therefore, people don't think". That's not the form this has.

Derp.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 4:25:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 2:37:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/3/2012 1:50:16 PM, Ren wrote:
Composition.

- Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
- Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

Nah, that only applies when you're composing things into a whole. Like, "atoms don't think; people are composed of atoms; therefore, atoms don't think". That's not the form this has.

I suppose you're right.

Then, I guess the logical fallacy I would call that is "stupid."

Lol, I tried to think of another fallacy that sounds anything like it, and couldn't come up with one.

"Herpdederp, I have hands, and so do clocks, so I'm a clock."

Lol, it's just stupid. xD

But, then again, it might just be what you found on Wiki thereafter. It seems pretty close. But, it appears definitional, rather than regarding characteristics.

/shrug
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2012 4:34:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 1:24:25 PM, girg wrote:
So I saw this statement awhile ago, and I cannot decide what kind of logical fallacy the following statement would be.
Statement:
Potatoes have skin.
I have skin,
ergo, I am a potato.

Any ideas?

It's called worthless BS that erases minutes of your life. It isn't worth a response or thought. You should have just passed it by without giving it a moments thought.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
girg
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 6:00:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 4:34:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/3/2012 1:24:25 PM, girg wrote:
So I saw this statement awhile ago, and I cannot decide what kind of logical fallacy the following statement would be.
Statement:
Potatoes have skin.
I have skin,
ergo, I am a potato.

Any ideas?

It's called worthless BS that erases minutes of your life. It isn't worth a response or thought. You should have just passed it by without giving it a moments thought.

Can't tell if trolling, or just a really mean person....
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 6:16:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 6:00:31 PM, girg wrote:
At 7/3/2012 4:34:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/3/2012 1:24:25 PM, girg wrote:
So I saw this statement awhile ago, and I cannot decide what kind of logical fallacy the following statement would be.
Statement:
Potatoes have skin.
I have skin,
ergo, I am a potato.

Any ideas?

It's called worthless BS that erases minutes of your life. It isn't worth a response or thought. You should have just passed it by without giving it a moments thought.

Can't tell if trolling, or just a really mean person....

He's just a cranky old douche, that's all.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 6:33:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 1:38:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
Even if the term "skin" was used appropriately in both premises, it'd still be fallacious. Consider:

Cats have skin.
I have skin.
Ergo I am a cat.

So I'm not sure "equivocation" is the most correct answer.

This particular fallacy confuses necessity and sufficiency. In formal logic, statements need to be rewritten as if-then statements.

C = cat
S = skin
M = me

If C, then S.
If M, then S.
Conclusion: If M, then C.

This doesn't work. If something is a cat or it is me, then that information is sufficient to show that this entity has skin. Skin is not a sufficient condition to show that something is a cat. It is a necessary condition (assuming the statement was "all cats have skin), but not a sufficient one.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 6:38:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is also an equivocation fallacy (using a word in two different ways), given that it uses two different definitions for the word skin.

This is a similar example, without the necessity-sufficiency fallacy:

No mammals are blue. [blue = the color]
I am blue. [blue = depressed]
Therefore, I am not a mammal.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 6:41:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/3/2012 2:56:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/3/2012 2:43:02 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Not a fallacy. Perfectly sound logic. I am a potato.

Couch potatoes are a type of potato.
You are a couch potato.
Therefore, you are a potato.

True, albeit in some possible world that potato would exist as a maximally great potato capable of shooting laser beams through its skin. It follows that such a potato would necessarily exist in every possible world if it is to be maximally great.

That's modal logic for you.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 8:03:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 6:41:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 7/3/2012 2:56:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/3/2012 2:43:02 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Not a fallacy. Perfectly sound logic. I am a potato.

Couch potatoes are a type of potato.
You are a couch potato.
Therefore, you are a potato.

True, albeit in some possible world that potato would exist as a maximally great potato capable of shooting laser beams through its skin. It follows that such a potato would necessarily exist in every possible world if it is to be maximally great.

That's modal logic for you.

Actually, your logic fails. Potatoes cannot be maximally great beings. Potatoes are contingent entities.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 2:21:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 6:33:29 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 7/3/2012 1:38:30 PM, drafterman wrote:
Even if the term "skin" was used appropriately in both premises, it'd still be fallacious. Consider:

Cats have skin.
I have skin.
Ergo I am a cat.

So I'm not sure "equivocation" is the most correct answer.

This particular fallacy confuses necessity and sufficiency. In formal logic, statements need to be rewritten as if-then statements.

C = cat
S = skin
M = me

If C, then S.
If M, then S.
Conclusion: If M, then C.

This doesn't work. If something is a cat or it is me, then that information is sufficient to show that this entity has skin. Skin is not a sufficient condition to show that something is a cat. It is a necessary condition (assuming the statement was "all cats have skin), but not a sufficient one.

Actually, with the kind of propositional logic you seem to be using, your terms C, M and S have to stand for actual propositions. The atomic unit of propositional logic is the eponymous proposition, now should you have used at least first order logic, single words could be used.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 11:46:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 6:41:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
True, albeit in some possible world that potato would exist as a maximally great potato capable of shooting laser beams through its skin. It follows that such a potato would necessarily exist in every possible world if it is to be maximally great.

That's modal logic for you.

If thats what you think modal logic is then send me a debate challenge haha