Fallacy of missing subjunctive -- what's it called?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: *NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE* is an OXYMORON!
Next: equivalence
From: masoncXXX on 14 Jun 2010 02:41 What is the proper name of this fallacy? Statement: xxxx failed. A fallacy because without xxxx matters would have been much worse. I'll give a current example to illustrate its importance. The "stimulus bill failed. Unemployment is still high." But what if there had been no stimulus bill? (here is the missing subjunctive) Please don't get into a quarrel here about the merits of the stimulus bill ! I only used this to explain what I mean by "the missing subjunctive." Surely this has a name in the science of logic. -- MasonC
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 14 Jun 2010 10:46 "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> writes: > Every sentence in this book is incomprehensible. > Therefore, this book is incomprehensible. What book is that? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Marshall on 14 Jun 2010 10:54 On Jun 14, 7:46 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> writes: > > > Every sentence in this book is incomprehensible. > > Therefore, this book is incomprehensible. > > What book is that? Schoenfield. Marshall
From: MoeBlee on 14 Jun 2010 11:41 On Jun 14, 9:54 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 14, 7:46 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > > "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> writes: > > > > Every sentence in this book is incomprehensible. > > > Therefore, this book is incomprehensible. > > > What book is that? > > Schoenfield. He's not a book. He's a field. A shoen field. Hinman, though, they tell me really is a book. Funny that, since you'd think he's a man, a hin man. MoeBlee
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 15 Jun 2010 09:22
MoeBlee <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> writes: > As I understand, you mean: > > "The stimulus bill worked" by definition means "unemployment is lower > now". No, then it is lower now than it otherwise would have been, not that it is lower now than when we passed the bill. All sorts of things might influence the unemployment rate. Some of these effects might be larger than the positive effects of the stimulus bill, but it wouldn't follow that the stimulus bill didn't work. This is the situation the OP has in mind. > > Well, IF we adopt that definition, (I take it that as a matter of fact > unemployment is not lower now), then > > "If the stimulus bill worked, then unemployment is lower now. > Unemployment is not lower now. > Therefore, the stimulus bill did not work." > > is a valid argument and both premises are true. -- "[Y]ou never understood the real role of mathematicians. The position is one of great responsibility and power. [...] You people have no concept of what it means to be an actual mathematician versus pretending to be one, dreaming you understand." -- James S. Harris |