HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » DU Logicians, Need Help N...

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 05:55 PM

DU Logicians, Need Help Naming a Fallacy

This came up the other day. I know well enough that it is a fallacy, put I'm having difficulty nailing down the exact name of the fallacy.

Here goes:

George likes cats.
Cats are animals.
Therefore, George must like all animals.

It seems like generalization, but examples I've been looking at don't quite match up.

24 replies, 3066 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply DU Logicians, Need Help Naming a Fallacy (Original post)
ProudLib72 Apr 2018 OP
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2018 #1
ProudLib72 Apr 2018 #7
oberliner Apr 2018 #2
Aristus Apr 2018 #3
leftieNanner Apr 2018 #4
triron Apr 2018 #5
unblock Apr 2018 #6
ProudLib72 Apr 2018 #8
unblock Apr 2018 #12
yonder Apr 2018 #16
Xipe Totec Apr 2018 #9
ProudLib72 Apr 2018 #17
Xipe Totec Apr 2018 #20
ProudLib72 Apr 2018 #21
Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2018 #10
Exotica Apr 2018 #11
Shrek Apr 2018 #13
ProudLib72 Apr 2018 #18
janx Apr 2018 #14
Major Nikon Apr 2018 #15
ProudLib72 Apr 2018 #19
Wounded Bear Apr 2018 #22
ProudLib72 Apr 2018 #23
Wounded Bear Apr 2018 #24

Response to ProudLib72 (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 05:56 PM

1. It's a syllogism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 06:08 PM

7. Yes, I wrote it as such

If reversed, then it is true. The way it is written here is not true. So the question is, what makes it untrue this way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 05:56 PM

2. Sounds like association fallacy

 

Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 05:57 PM

3. I think that's just a straight-up logical fallacy.

You used a linear, logical progression to come to the conclusion, but the conclusion is fallacious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 05:57 PM

4. It's backwards

George likes all animals
Cats are animals
Therefore, George likes cats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftieNanner (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 05:59 PM

5. that would be logically true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to unblock (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 06:16 PM

8. I thought fallacy of composition was

Hydrogen is not wet
Oxygen is not wet
Therefore H2O must not be wet

Fallacy of composition is one that seems similar. Now you see my quandary? I never studied logical fallacies in a formal setting, and they all seem so appealing to me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 06:26 PM

12. Whenever you take a property of an element of a set and attribute it to the entire set

That's the fallacy of composition.

Oxygen is a gas at room temperature,
Oxygen is a member of the set of elements in h2o,
Therefore h2o is a gas at room temperature.

George likes cats
Cats are members of the set of all animals
George like all animals

Same structure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 07:56 PM

16. I've been trying to learn more about informal fallacies. That would be my answer too. Dunno though.

Fallacy of composition:

If one person in a group stands to get a better view, then all people who stand would get a better view. False

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 06:20 PM

9. You need the illustrated book of bad arguments



https://almossawi.com/bookofbadarguments.html

But yours, specifically, is generalization from the particulars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 07:56 PM

17. That looks like a REALLY good book

I teach my composition students a few each semester, but we never go very deep. I wonder if they would like an illustrated book with pigs and rabbits committing heinous logical fallacies. I wish we offered a critical thinking class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Reply #17)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 08:23 PM

20. I liked it so much I gave it as a gift to my college age niece. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #20)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 08:28 PM

21. I just ordered a copy!

I have a 15 year old niece who might find it useful (once I'm finished with it )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 06:24 PM

10. The only conclusion one can draw is

George likes some animals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 06:25 PM

11. It is a fallacy of degree. It goes from non universal statements in the

 

first two clauses, to a universal statement in the third.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 06:26 PM

13. Illicit major n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrek (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 08:01 PM

18. That looks very much like my syllogism. Thanks!

1. All dogs are mammals
2. No cats are dogs
3. Therefore, no cats are mammals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illicit_major


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 06:29 PM

14. It is a non sequitur in the form

of an illogical
syllogism. Illogical
because the logic and categories are backwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 06:37 PM

15. You can have a lot of fun with associative logic

God is love
Love is blind
Ergo Stevie Wonder is god.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #15)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 08:07 PM

19. Oh no! I feel a thread about tRump using associative logic coming on

Not starting it here and now, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 08:41 PM

22. A camel is always a mammal...

but a mammal ain't always a camel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #22)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 08:45 PM

23. Fake News!

Sometimes a camel is a cigarette!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudLib72 (Reply #23)

Thu Apr 12, 2018, 08:48 PM

24. Got me there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread