SkipCaptcha, nsSupply_SidersR, nsSupply_Siders_
8,436
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
rvv
#redirect [[Liberal]]
'''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 ==
Classically, the term ''non sequitur'' applies to:
# A conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.<ref name=Heritage>[http://www.bartleby.com/61/61/N0146100.html 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, [http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/fallacies/non_sequitur.html Non sequitur logical fallacies] at SierraFoot.org. 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]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]