Difference between revisions of "Non sequitur"
(→Liberal non sequiturs: Education) |
m (Reverted edits by AJFrederickson (Talk) to last revision by DanielPulido) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''''Non sequitur''''' ([[Latin]]: "It does not follow") is a [[logical fallacy]] that involves arguing from a [[premise]] to a [[conclusion]] with a lack of sufficient connection between the two.<ref name=Whitman>Glenn Whitman, [http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Non%20sequitur Non sequitur], ''Glen Whitman's Debate Page'', August 30, 2005. Retrieved April 9, 2007.</ref> | + | '''''Non sequitur''''' ([[Latin]]: "It does not follow") is a [[logical fallacy]] that involves arguing from a [[premise]] to a [[conclusion]] with a lack of sufficient connection between the two.<ref name=Whitman>Glenn Whitman, [http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Non%20sequitur Non sequitur], ''Glen Whitman's Debate Page'', August 30, 2005. Retrieved April 9, 2007.</ref> |
== Definitions == | == Definitions == | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
The usual way to weaken a ''non sequitur'' is simply to show that two facts, that might happen to correlate, are in fact not mutually relevant. Of course, showing that the chain of implication is reversed--meaning that the first named fact actually follows from the second, rather than the second from the first--will cast even more serious doubt on the argument. | The usual way to weaken a ''non sequitur'' is simply to show that two facts, that might happen to correlate, are in fact not mutually relevant. Of course, showing that the chain of implication is reversed--meaning that the first named fact actually follows from the second, rather than the second from the first--will cast even more serious doubt on the argument. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 02:52, August 6, 2010
Non sequitur (Latin: "It does not follow") is a logical fallacy that involves arguing from a premise to a conclusion with a lack of sufficient connection between the two.[1]
Definitions
Classically, the term non sequitur applies to:
- A conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.[2]
- A statement that does not necessarily follow from preceding statements.[2]
Some authorities use the term non sequitur to refer generally to any fallacy involving the introduction of irrelevant considerations.[3] This, then, would include ad hominem and special pleading.
Example
The most common example of non sequitur is any attempt to infer causation from correlation alone. An argument of causality--that is, that X caused Y--is always subject to weakening if one can show that:
- Y could have occurred with or without X.
- Another event, Z, could have caused Y.
- Y caused X rather than X causing Y.
The usual way to weaken a non sequitur is simply to show that two facts, that might happen to correlate, are in fact not mutually relevant. Of course, showing that the chain of implication is reversed--meaning that the first named fact actually follows from the second, rather than the second from the first--will cast even more serious doubt on the argument.
References
- ↑ Glenn Whitman, Non sequitur, Glen Whitman's Debate Page, August 30, 2005. Retrieved April 9, 2007.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Definition of non sequitur in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th. ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. Retrieved April 9, 2007.
- ↑ Paul Raveling, Non sequitur logical fallacies at SierraFoot.org. Retrieved April 9, 2007.
