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.


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?