Undistributed middle

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(started page - could probably use better examples - could probably use a venn diagram)
 
(Cleaned up a bit.)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Overview==
+
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 similar fallacy to [[Equivocation]], except, 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==
 
==Examples==
 
Here are some examples of the undistributed middle:
 
  
 
* 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
  1. All cats use air.
  2. All gasoline engines use air.
  3. Therefore, all cats are gasoline engines.
  • Example 2
  1. Science uses the word Theory.
  2. Creationism uses the word Theory.
  3. Thus, Creationism is science.
  • Example 3
  1. All fish swim in the ocean.
  2. All whales swim in the ocean.
  3. Therefore, all whales are fish (They're not - they're mammals)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox