Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 08/08/04 

Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 07:23:12 -0500

On 8 Aug 2004 04:48:08 -0700, sanderbruggink@hotmail.com (Sander
Bruggink) wrote:

>"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:
>> No the error is yours. You naturally equivocated invocations with
>> inputs, they are not identical in every possible case.
>
>LOL. You, as a programmer, do understand, of course, that invoking a
>function which requires input, without giving it input, results in a
>compile-time error.
>
>
>> Here is another example of the fallacy of equivocation
>> (straight from my logic text book)
>>
>> (1) Only man is rational.
>> (2) No woman is a man.
>> (3) Therefore no woman is rational.
>
>Perhaps I, as a non-native speaker, miss the more obscure gists of the
>meaning of English, but I would say that
>
>(1) Only men are rational: Rational(x) -> Man(x).
>(2) No woman is a man: Woman(x) -> ~Man(x).
>(3) Therefore no woman is rational: Woman(x) -> ~Rational(x)
>
>is perfectly correct reasoning (although the premises are flawed).

not that it has any relevance, but you're missing the intended
reading. the 'equivocation' arises when the meaning of a word
changes from one line to the next:

in [1] 'men' is supposed to mean 'human beings', male or female,
while in [2] 'man' refers to a male. if you read it that way
then the premises are at least plausible - not as flawed as
in the way you read it. otoh if you read it that way the
argu,ent is clearly invalid.

>groente
>-- Sander

************************

David C. Ullrich

sorry about the inelegant formatting - typing
one-handed for a few weeks...

Relevant Pages