Reply to comment
If Some A are B
June 12, 2007 by Anonymous (not verified), 2 years 21 weeks ago
Comment id: 23927
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!
Not to belabor the point, and as a correction to my initial post,
If some A are B
and C is A
the statement "C is B" is an invalid conclusion and therefore not-true given the premises. It cannot be true without changing the premises (e.g. change "some" to "all"). That C is B may be true due to some other factors is possible, but does not logically follow from the premises you set out.
The point is that, because you position the argument as a test of deductive (i.e. syllogistic) reasoning and then promote a non-valid conclusion, people who may be sympathetic to the point of the article (i.e. that more study is warranted WRT the Kilimanjaro glacier) are instead diverted into either arguing about logical fallacies or dismissing the point altogether as illogical bunk (which it is not).