2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Marsupial cats?[edit]

Did you switch a premise for the conclusion or did I miss a day in biology? (probably) PacWalker 11:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The source skrewd yp. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 11:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
fix ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 11:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed that the given premises and conclusion for that argument all happen to be true, yet the argument is still fallacious. I can't quite put my finger on precisely why, but I think it has something to do with room for extra premises that would falsify the argument ("all mammals that are not marsupials are cats" or something like that). --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Title: illicit negative?[edit]

The longer title explains what it is, but it strikes me as rambling ... also, "illicit negative" is what it's properly called. I'm not 100% on moving it though. Anyone else? - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's only titled this cuz' Wikipedia's page and EvoWiki's page were titled this. Move at will. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 11:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh really? If the Wikipedia article's here, that'll do - David Gerard (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)