Changes

'''''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 insufficient or no 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 ==

== Example ==

== 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:

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.

# Y could have occurred with or without X.

# Another event, Z, actually caused Y.

# Another event, Z, could have caused Y.

# Y caused X rather than X causing 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.

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 ==

<references/>

<references/>

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

* [[Logical fallacy]]

[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

 

[[Category:Philosophy]]