Jump to: navigation, search

Non sequitur

1,999 bytes added, 03:48, February 14, 2008
'''Non sequitur''' ([[Latin]], "It does not follow") is a [[logical fallacy]] that involves arguing from a premise to a conclusion with insufficient or no connection between the two.<ref name=Whitman>Glenn Whitman, [ Non%20sequitur Non sequitur], ''Glen Whitman's Debate Page'', August 30, 2005. Retrieved April 9, 2007.</ref> == Definitions ==Classically, the term ''non sequitur'' applies to: # A conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.<ref name=Heritage>[ Definition of non sequitur] in ''The American Heritage┬« Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th. ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. Retrieved April 9, 2007.</ref># A statement that does not necessarily follow from preceding statements.<ref name=Heritage/> Some authorities use the term ''non sequitur'' to refer generally to any fallacy involving the introduction of irrelevant considerations.<ref name=Raveling>Paul Raveling, [ Non sequitur logical fallacies] at Retrieved April 9, 2007.</ref> 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, actually 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 ==<references/> == See Also ==* [[Logical fallacy]] [[LiberalCategory:Philosophy]]
SkipCaptcha, nsSupply_SidersR, nsSupply_Siders_