Undistributed middle
(Difference between revisions)
(started page - could probably use better examples - could probably use a venn diagram) |
(Cleaned up a bit.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | The '''Undistributed middle''' is a fallacy similar to to [[Equivocation]], except that instead of conflating definitions, two different things are equated due to a common middle ground that is misused. The argument is assuming that the set of Object-A that has the middle ground intersects with the set of Object-B that has the same middle ground. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | The '''Undistributed middle''' is a | + | |
==Examples== | ==Examples== | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* Example 1 | * Example 1 | ||
Revision as of 10:21, 23 February 2011
The Undistributed middle is a fallacy similar to to Equivocation, except that instead of conflating definitions, two different things are equated due to a common middle ground that is misused. The argument is assuming that the set of Object-A that has the middle ground intersects with the set of Object-B that has the same middle ground.
Examples
- Example 1
- All cats use air.
- All gasoline engines use air.
- Therefore, all cats are gasoline engines.
- Example 2
- Science uses the word Theory.
- Creationism uses the word Theory.
- Thus, Creationism is science.
- Example 3
- All fish swim in the ocean.
- All whales swim in the ocean.
- Therefore, all whales are fish (They're not - they're mammals)
