Brian Hunt Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 My friend posted the following on facebook:"All Cats are Animals, and all Dogs are Animals, and all Kangaroos are Animals, so therefore all Cats are Dogs, and all Dogs are Cats, but not all Dogs are Kangaroos, and Kangaroos can only be Cats if the Dogs aren't Cats. Disprove me"I told him his logic was faulty and I don't feel like typing the reasons why because I've typed them oh so many times, and I feel they're obvious but he keeps insisting that he is correct. Any thoughts? My mind is exhausted as I've tried to explain it for over two hours. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haley.the.great Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 My thoughts are, your friend is successful. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avan:) Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 everything after "all kangaroos are animals" is wrong, as the therefore is not justified and is not valid? i think. argh...i hate tok. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 "All Cats are Animals, and all Dogs are Animals, and all Kangaroos are Animals, so therefore all Cats are Dogs, and all Dogs are Cats, but not all Dogs are Kangaroos, and Kangaroos can only be Cats if the Dogs aren't Cats. Disprove me"Because therefore all A are B is not a logical progression of the statements all A are C and all B are C. Unless, of course, you're arguing for religion in which case, logic can go run out the window, everything can be C... Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proletariat Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) Your friend's trying to have a good chuckle. In reality, he/she isn't even discussing logic, but rather semantics. The word "animals" is used in the adjective form, not the noun. Therefore, the ability of "Cats" and "Dogs" to share a single similar quality does not make them identical entities, and the rest of the statement does not logically follow. To illustrate the fallacy, simply replace the word "animals" in that phrase with the word "red." If your friend insists that this is deductive logic though, then he/she still has not presented a valid argument; see Sandwich's response =P Edited July 4, 2011 by Proletariat Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Hunt Posted July 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 He believes this is Deductive logic. He doesn't even know the word semantics. I've been through it multiple times, and even drew a diagram but he insists his deductive logic is valid. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proletariat Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 He believes this is Deductive logic. He doesn't even know the word semantics. I've been through it multiple times, and even drew a diagram but he insists his deductive logic is valid.Say to your friend "My nose is made of cheese. Disprove me." Then promptly ignore every single attempt at refutation. 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Or just tell him he's a twerp* * 4 letter word rhyming with 'bat', actually, but IBS censored it 2 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.