In Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" Shylock claims a pound of flesh near to Antonio's heart, because A. couldn't pay his debt on time. But the courts deny him his right by forbidding him spill Antonio's blood. Shylock can't cut his pound of flesh without drawing blood, so he can't claim his right.
For all true statements, there is some object that they describe.
So, there must be some object which all true statements describe.
cougar wrote:Yep, let "Describe" be a two place predicate , for . Then, our derivation is the following, , which is not true in general.
To see why, lets pick an arbitrary . Assume that a particular object, call it holds for . Now we would have to show that holds for that particular for for any . But, since was arbitrary, we don't know enough to do this generally, we just know it works in one particular case, not all.
cloudy-a wrote:The current logical-fallacy-containing statement is:
"Good and evil are constantly battling it out for control of the universe"
sparky wrote:This is a tough one. Is it the "Figure of Speech" fallacy?
The phrase figuratively gives "good" and "evil" human-like qualities by implying that they can battle, which may cause confusion.
cloudy-a wrote:Yep Sparky. I learned it as reification fallacy, but I think it is the same thing (?)
Anyhow, you're up. :)
xcthulhu wrote:cougar wrote:Yep, let "Describe" be a two place predicate , for . Then, our derivation is the following, , which is not true in general.
To see why, lets pick an arbitrary . Assume that a particular object, call it holds for . Now we would have to show that holds for that particular for for any . But, since was arbitrary, we don't know enough to do this generally, we just know it works in one particular case, not all.
I don't think you are really done, cougar.
It'd be better to give a model where the antecedent is true but the predicate is false, to really show that it is invalid. An easy one is S={a,b} O={c,d} D={(a,c),(b,d)}; there are probably easier ones.
-------
Here's one I came up with the other day, from Provability Logic.
As you may all know, Bew('P') is Gödel's notation for the statement "There exists a proof of proposition P" where 'P' is the numerical representation of P. Furthermore, there is a famous theorem called Löb's Theorem, that says Bew('Bew('P')->P')->Bew('P').
Now, suppose ~Bew('A') for some A.
Then clearly, we have Bew('A')->A, because the antecedent is false.
Thus, we know that Bew('Bew('A')->A'), so I may use modus ponens to deduce Bew('A')
But that's a contradiction #
So I know by Reductio ad Absurdem that Bew('A'), for any wff A. In other words, any statement is provable.
Note to Sparky: I don't think this fits into a cookie-cutter fallacy type...
Sparky wrote:xcthulhu wrote:As you may all know, Bew('P') is Gödel's notation for the statement "There exists a proof of proposition P" where 'P' is the numerical representation of P. Furthermore, there is a famous theorem called Löb's Theorem, that says Bew('Bew('P')->P')->Bew('P').
Now, suppose ~Bew('A') for some A.
Then clearly, we have Bew('A')->A, because the antecedent is false.
Thus, we know that Bew('Bew('A')->A'), so I may use modus ponens to deduce Bew('A')
But that's a contradiction #
So I know by Reductio ad Absurdem that Bew('A'), for any wff A. In other words, any statement is provable.
Note to Sparky: I don't think this fits into a cookie-cutter fallacy type...
I think I've seen this one before. It's called "argumentum ad no comprehendum"
... otherwise know as the "baffle you with my brilliance" fallacy. ;-)
j/k, care to explain where the fallacy lies?
linford86 wrote:Here's one:
Michael Behe is a tenured professor at Lehigh university and he believes in intelligent design.
Therefore, intelligent design is true.
kidjan wrote:linford86 wrote:Here's one:
Michael Behe is a tenured professor at Lehigh university and he believes in intelligent design.
Therefore, intelligent design is true.
Argument from authority?
philip8 wrote:How about . . .
No rice is snow
No snow is hot
Thus, no rice is hot
Hylas wrote:Nowhere to go from there. I guess the fallacy would be denying the antecedent?
linford86 wrote:Can we post informal fallacies? If so, here's one:
Marijuana is completely natural (it's a plant!)
Anything that is completely natural is good (or healthy.)
Therefore, marijuana is good (or healthy.)
linford86 wrote:Can we post informal fallacies? If so, here's one:
Marijuana is completely natural (it's a plant!)
Anything that is completely natural is good (or healthy.)
Therefore, marijuana is good (or healthy.)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests