Difference between revisions of "Non sequitur"
(→Liberal non sequiturs: Science) |
(→Liberal non sequiturs: Education) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
*'''Science''': "Evolution is true because it has been scientifically proven." | *'''Science''': "Evolution is true because it has been scientifically proven." | ||
::Scientific proof requires evidence, and lots of it, but evolution has none. Also, simply agreeing that something is true does not make it so. Aside from being factually wrong, the argument is structurally backward. | ::Scientific proof requires evidence, and lots of it, but evolution has none. Also, simply agreeing that something is true does not make it so. Aside from being factually wrong, the argument is structurally backward. | ||
| + | *'''Education''': "Public schools are effective institutions of learning because of their strong curricula." | ||
| + | ::See [[Public schools]]. Enough said. | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 23:55, July 31, 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] Non sequiturs are a common example of Liberal Style.
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.
Liberal non sequiturs
Most arguments by liberals invoke some sort of non sequitor, so attempting to systematically catalog all of them would be a monumental and impractical task. The following are a few select examples to demonstrate such arguments and why they fail.
- Religion: "I have never seen God, therefore he does not exist."
- This extremely common argument barely merits response. First, the liberal shows ignorance by assuming that God can only be experienced visually. Second, claiming that just because the liberal doesn't believe, no one else has reason to, is illogical and demonstrates lack of an open mind.
- Politics: "Increasing taxes will help the economy."
- The foundation of our entire economy is citizens spending money. Taxes take away that money, therefore Americans have less to spend. Less spending = slower economy. It's as simple as that.
- Science: "Evolution is true because it has been scientifically proven."
- Scientific proof requires evidence, and lots of it, but evolution has none. Also, simply agreeing that something is true does not make it so. Aside from being factually wrong, the argument is structurally backward.
- Education: "Public schools are effective institutions of learning because of their strong curricula."
- See Public schools. Enough said.
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.
