Undistributed middle
(Difference between revisions)
(Cleaned up a bit.) |
(→Examples: Not all fish live in the ocans. Rephrasing the example so that it still works, but without the additional problem of an incorrect premis.) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* Example 3 | * Example 3 | ||
| − | :# All fish | + | :# All fish live in water. |
| − | :# All whales | + | :# All whales live in water. |
:# Therefore, all whales are fish (They're not - they're mammals) | :# Therefore, all whales are fish (They're not - they're mammals) | ||
Revision as of 10:23, 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 live in water.
- All whales live in water.
- Therefore, all whales are fish (They're not - they're mammals)
