Talk:Fallacy of four terms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
how is this different from math: "you need n different quotations/terms to calculate n variables in correlation" ?
[edit] Falacy Example
I don't understand how this is an example of a fallacy:
- Major premise: All fish have fins.
- Minor premise: All goldfish are fish.
- Conclusion: All humans have fins.
It's obviously not true, and maybe it is an example of a Fallacy of four terms, but it is so far out that I doubt this is an example that would really happen in real life.
The reason this is a bad example is that I can not see how anyone would accidently think that this makes sence. When this fallacy actually occurs, the item in the second term (goldfish) must somehow seem to be related to the last term (humans) in order to cause confusion. There should be an example that shows this better.
When explaining a falacy, explaining why it is false is just as important as explaining why some people think it is true. I see why this is false, but there is something missing here.
What is missing is an example that shows how this fallacy can occur without an Equivocation. If an equivocation is required for a Fallacy of four terms then we should say it, and if it is not required, we should explain why.--VegKilla 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
(Note that the Equivocation article says that Equivocation is a type of Fallacy of four terms. If this is accurate, then a Fallacy of four terms should be able to occur without Equivocation, and if it is not true, then the Equivocation article need to be fixed.)
