| Illicit Major |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Invalid Form
>
Illicit Major
|
Logical Fallacy of Illicit MajorIllicit major 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 logical fallacy of illicit major occurs when a premise is stated referring to only part of the class, but the conclusion referrs to the whole class. S=subject, P=predicate, M=middle term
Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Illicit Major
Subject = Catholics, Predicate = Christian, Minor Term = those supposed to follow Jesus
The minor term is the term that appears in the minor premise as the predicate. If it appears in the conclusion as the subject, it is undistributed. If we were to write the conclusion as, “Therefore, all S are M (Therefore, all Catholics are supposed to follow Jesus) then it would not be a fallacy.
This reasoning is invalid because the form is backwards. The first two premises are true, but the form is invalid, so the reasoning is not sound.
The conclusion is wrong. It doesn't follow from the premises. All people who think they are naturally god are people who have committed sins. The major and minor premises are both true, but the conclusion is false. The form is not valid.
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 Minor Invalid form using All Invalid form using \"Some\" Unwarranted Contrast Denying a Conjunct Positive Conclusion from Negative Premises Illicit Affirmative 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 |