| Exclusive Premises |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Invalid Form
>
Exclusive Premises
|
Fallacy of Exclusive PremisesExclusive premises fallacy is a formal fallacy that covers up the problem when reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The Fallacy of Exclusive Premises occurs when a syllogism has two negative premises. Only one premise can be negative if the conclusion is negative. With two negative premises, you cannot support a negative conclusion or a positive conclusion. If both of the premises are positive, you cannot support a negative concluson. If the conclusion is positive, both premises must be positive. If the conclusion is negative, one of the premises must be negative and the other premise must be positive. Invalid Form
or
Examples of the Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
No categorical syllogism that contains two negative premises, as this one does, has sound reasoning--even if both premises and the conclusion are all true.
No categorical syllogism that contains two negative premises, as this one does, has sound reasoning.
The conclusion may be true, and the premises may be true, but the logic is not sound. In other words, by this logic, the conclusion cannot be known to be true.
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionFormally Correct Fallacy Affirming the Consequent Commutation of Conditionals Affirming a Disjunct Denying the Antecedent Illicit Process Illicit Major Illicit Minor Invalid form using All Invalid form using \"Some\" Unwarranted Contrast Denying a Conjunct Positive Conclusion from Negative Premises Illicit Affirmative Existential Instantiation Fallacy of Four Terms Fallacy of Necessity Fallacy of False Conversion Illicit Contraposition Hooded Man Fallacy Confusing \"if\" with \"if and only if\" Improper Transposition Invalid form using \"OR\" Confusion of \"Necessary\" with a \"Sufficient\" Condition Galileo Argument (Formal) Four Terms Fallacy Recently Viewed |
