Reply to comment
Formal Logic
June 11, 2007 by Anonymous (not verified), 2 years 23 weeks ago
Comment id: 23919
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
er,
Formal Logic dictates that the validity of the syllogism is FALSE, not "Neither"
The post correctly points out that premise (A)'s lack of the category "all" means that it appropriately reads:
(A)[some] Glaciers on Earth are retreating due to global warming.
Premise (B) may stand as written:
(B) The glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro is retreating,
The conclusion (C), reading:
(C) The retreat of the Kilimanjaro glacier is due to global warming.
is logically false.
Saying
some A are B
C is B
Therefore C is A
this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html)
while, personally, I agree that more study is needed to link (or not) the Kilimanjaro glacier to warming, it is important that arguments be presented correctly.