Wednesday, July 11, 2012

A implies not A in Rotter Logick

A sublime example of the genre: These deactivations are consistent with the strategic goal of securing America's borders.

5 comments:

Mr roT said...

That's some pretty blatant bullshit, huh?

Tecumseh said...

But, is it tasteless?

Tecumseh said...

Taranto comes up today with another gem in the genre:

Here's Forman's argument, encapsulated into a syllogism:

If someone is not a socialist, he is not a communist.
Obama is not a communist.
Therefore, Obama is not a socialist.

The technical term for the fallacy Forman has committed is "affirming the consequent": mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient one.

In other words, (A=>B) => (B =>A). One of the most basic principles of Pepean Logick, explained in a succinct way.

Arelcao Akleos said...

Aristotle Weeps.

Tecumseh said...

How about this fallacy? What's the name for it?