Not sure I get it
From the examples given, it seems as though the fallacy lies in extrapolating from "if S exists, then it has property P" to "S exists" (because "all S are P" really means "any S that exist have property P").
Or, to put it another way, "all oranges are fruit" may be true, but it's not enough to conclude that oranges exist.
Does that sound right? --Arensb 14:40, 25 February 2011 (CST)
Not sure I get it either
I think it'd be more like "all oranges are fruit", "all fruit is tasty", "therefore, some oranges are tasty".. or something like that.
My comprehension of it is fleeting. If someone were to use the leprechaun error, I could point out which fallacy they were using, but I don't know why they'd make that mistake. I scoured a bunch of different sources, and didn't get much more out of the concept.
I almost think that the list of fallacies on the logical fallacies page were added whether they had anything to do with apologetics, or not.
I think the leprechaun example is the clearest, and that's not saying much. I wouldn't be opposed to just removing this entry as being unassociated with counter-apologetics.
jt 16:06, 25 February 2011 (CST)