| Illicit Affirmative |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Invalid Form
>
Illicit Affirmative
|
Logical Fallacy of Drawing a Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises / Illicit AffirmativeDrawing a negative conclusion from an affirmative premise is a formal fallacy that covers up the problem when reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. It is an additional logical error that is superimposed on the real problem. 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 Logical Fallacy of Drawing a Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises / Illicit Affirmative occurs when a negative conclusion is drawn when both premises of a categorical syllogism are not also negative, that is, one or both premises are positive. INVALID FORM "All A is B. All B is C. Therefore, some C is not A." INVALID FORM "A is a subset of B. B is a subset of C. Therefore, C is not a subset of A." INVALID FORM "A is a subset of B. B is a subset of C. Therefore, A is not a subset of C." INVALID FORM "All A is B. All C is A. Therefore, some C is not B." Note that logic can have a true conclusion but still be unsound logic. If the form is invalid, that doesn't prove that the conclusion is false. If the form is valid, that doesn't prove that the conclusion is true. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Drawing a Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises / Illicit Affirmative
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 Existential Instantiation Exclusive Premises 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 |
