Difference between revisions of "Non sequitur"
m (→See Also: cat) |
m (→See Also: cat, redundant link) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]] | [[Category:Logical Fallacies]] | ||
Revision as of 05:23, April 6, 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.[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, 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
- ↑ 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.