Deductive Fallacies - Revision history

GSalmieri: /* Denying the Antecedent */

2024-09-02T18:32:43Z

Denying the Antecedent

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:32, 2 September 2024
Line 21:		Line 21:
	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/854845cd232b43d1a5cb188b07939af0}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/854845cd232b43d1a5cb188b07939af0}}

	Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 2 (which tells us that it did not rain) does not put us in a position to know that the ground is not wet.		Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 7 (which tells us that it did not rain) does not put us in a position to know that the ground is not wet.

GSalmieri: /* Affirming the Consequent */

2024-09-02T18:32:22Z

Affirming the Consequent

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:32, 2 September 2024
Line 15:		Line 15:
	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/553b3548dd51420c9532eb263391805d}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/553b3548dd51420c9532eb263391805d}}

	Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 8 (which tells us that the ground did get wet), doesn't put us in a position to know that it rained (rather than having gotten wet in some other manner, such as by having been sprayed by a hose).		Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 2 (which tells us that the ground did get wet) doesn't put us in a position to know that it rained (rather than having gotten wet in some other manner, such as by having been sprayed by a hose).

	=Denying the Antecedent=		=Denying the Antecedent=

GSalmieri: /* Denying the Antecedent */

2024-09-02T18:31:53Z

Denying the Antecedent

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 2 September 2024
Line 19:		Line 19:
	=Denying the Antecedent=		=Denying the Antecedent=

	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/~~db91808e115345aba95131cda4ac08f1~~}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/854845cd232b43d1a5cb188b07939af0}}

	Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 2 (which tells us that it did not rain) does not put us in a position to know that the ground is not wet.		Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 2 (which tells us that it did not rain) does not put us in a position to know that the ground is not wet.

GSalmieri: /* Affirming the Consequent */

2024-09-02T18:31:34Z

Affirming the Consequent

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 2 September 2024
Line 13:		Line 13:


	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/~~3ff089e85e8d4edf9facb8e314e8cff3~~}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/553b3548dd51420c9532eb263391805d}}

	Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 8 (which tells us that the ground did get wet), doesn't put us in a position to know that it rained (rather than having gotten wet in some other manner, such as by having been sprayed by a hose).		Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 8 (which tells us that the ground did get wet), doesn't put us in a position to know that it rained (rather than having gotten wet in some other manner, such as by having been sprayed by a hose).


	=Denying the Antecedent=		=Denying the Antecedent=

GSalmieri: /* Denying the Antecedent */

2024-09-02T18:27:03Z

Denying the Antecedent

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:27, 2 September 2024
Line 20:		Line 20:
	=Denying the Antecedent=		=Denying the Antecedent=

	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/~~arguments~~/~~89a7c8ca-66a7-4c50-9252-d43c3b163143~~}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/db91808e115345aba95131cda4ac08f1}}

	Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 2 (which tells us that it did not rain) does not put us in a position to know that the ground is not wet.		Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 2 (which tells us that it did not rain) does not put us in a position to know that the ground is not wet.

GSalmieri at 18:26, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T18:26:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 2 September 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:

	=Affirming the Consequent=		=Affirming the Consequent=


	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/3ff089e85e8d4edf9facb8e314e8cff3}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/3ff089e85e8d4edf9facb8e314e8cff3}}

			Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 8 (which tells us that the ground did get wet), doesn't put us in a position to know that it rained (rather than having gotten wet in some other manner, such as by having been sprayed by a hose).


	=Denying the Antecedent=		=Denying the Antecedent=

	{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/89a7c8ca-66a7-4c50-9252-d43c3b163143}}		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/89a7c8ca-66a7-4c50-9252-d43c3b163143}}

			Proposition 1 in the map above tells is that ''if it rained'' the ground would be wet, but it does not tell us that the ground would not be wet unless it rained. Perhaps there are other conditions in which the ground would also be wet (for example, if someone had sprayed it with a hose), so adding Proposition 2 (which tells us that it did not rain) does not put us in a position to know that the ground is not wet.

GSalmieri at 18:19, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T18:19:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:19, 2 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There are some forms or argument that look like [[deductions]], but which are not. Here are the three most common invalid argument forms (or “deductive fallacies”):		There are some forms or argument that look like [[deductions]], but which are not. Here are the three most common invalid argument forms (or “deductive fallacies”) that are easily mistaken for deductions:

	=Undistributed Middle=		=Undistributed Middle=
Line 10:		Line 10:


			=Affirming the Consequent=

	{~~\| class="wikitable"~~		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/smaps/3ff089e85e8d4edf9facb8e314e8cff3}}
	\| Map ~~34-35:~~
	\|-
	~~\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1478?token=41804760-1661-42e4-9c4c-c0628a7f964e~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/~~arguments/1046~~/~~export?token=12edaa53-06b9-487d-8dd6-1b2d428e57f5&target=active&dpi=100&view=true&format=.png]~~
	\|}

	~~{\| class="wikitable"~~		=Denying the Antecedent=
	~~\| Map 36-37:~~		{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/89a7c8ca-66a7-4c50-9252-d43c3b163143}}
	\|-
	\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1478?token=41804760-1661-42e4-9c4c-c0628a7f964e https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1047/export?token=83ebaa51-70f4-4a4a-b116-74824b9b8c62&target=active&dpi=100&view=~~true&format~~=~~.png]~~
	\|}

	{~~\| class="wikitable"~~
	\| Map ~~38-39:~~
	\|-
	~~\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1478?token=41804760-1661-42e4-9c4c-c0628a7f964e~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/~~1048/export?token=~~89a7c8ca-66a7-4c50-9252-d43c3b163143~~&target=active&dpi=100&view=true&format=.png]~~
	\|}

	~~[[file:Tableone.png\|thumb\|left\|500px]]~~

GSalmieri: /* Undestributed Middle */

2024-09-02T18:12:22Z

Undestributed Middle

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:12, 2 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There are some forms or argument that look like [[deductions]], but which are not. Here are the three most common invalid argument forms (or “deductive fallacies”):		There are some forms or argument that look like [[deductions]], but which are not. Here are the three most common invalid argument forms (or “deductive fallacies”):

	=~~Undestributed~~ Middle=		=Undistributed Middle=

	In Aristotelian syllogisms, the middle term (the one that is present in both premises) must be ''distributed'' that is, is must be said to apply to ''all'' or to ''none'' of one of the other terms. The fallacy of undistributed middle is committed when one has an argument that looks like an Aristotelian syllogism, except that the middle term is not distributed. Here's are some examples:		In Aristotelian syllogisms, the middle term (the one that is present in both premises) must be ''distributed'' that is, is must be said to apply to ''all'' or to ''none'' of one of the other terms. The fallacy of undistributed middle is committed when one has an argument that looks like an Aristotelian syllogism, except that the middle term is not distributed. Here's are some examples:

GSalmieri at 18:11, 2 September 2024

2024-09-02T18:11:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:11, 2 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There are some forms or ~~arguemnt~~ that look like [[deductions]], but which are not. Here are the three most common invalid argument forms (or “deductive fallacies”):		There are some forms or argument that look like [[deductions]], but which are not. Here are the three most common invalid argument forms (or “deductive fallacies”):

			=Undestributed Middle=

			In Aristotelian syllogisms, the middle term (the one that is present in both premises) must be ''distributed'' that is, is must be said to apply to ''all'' or to ''none'' of one of the other terms. The fallacy of undistributed middle is committed when one has an argument that looks like an Aristotelian syllogism, except that the middle term is not distributed. Here's are some examples:


			{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/12edaa53-06b9-487d-8dd6-1b2d428e57f5}}
			{{Map\|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/83ebaa51-70f4-4a4a-b116-74824b9b8c62}}



	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"

GSalmieri at 20:27, 31 August 2024

2024-08-31T20:27:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:27, 31 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There are some forms or arguemnt that look like deductions, but which are not. Here are the three most common invalid argument forms (or “deductive fallacies”):		There are some forms or arguemnt that look like [[deductions]], but which are not. Here are the three most common invalid argument forms (or “deductive fallacies”):

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"