RationalWiki's 2020 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.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $1680Goal: $3500

Talk:Non sequitur

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

10/10 ten points for unpredictability on the example, Barbara ;). --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

I concur. Can we add some examples from another, any other, topic, at least? By the way, what happened to the peaches? They were tasty... humanUser talk:Human 16:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Actually, I think those aren't even non sequiturs, they're appeals to authority. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)
I think you are correct. Can we just have some nice, relatively neutral, real examples? I'll try to make a couple up... humanUser talk:Human 19:11, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Ai think Ai dun gud :) Plez chek mai werk. humanUser talk:Human 19:14, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Oh hai! I laik ur werk. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:48, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Christian non sequiturs[edit]

Just for a brief explanation of why the 'Christian non sequiturs' of Barbara's aren't proper N.S.s. Essentially, they're presenting the same syllogism, this one:

  • P1: [Jesus/The Bible] says that [statement X].
  • P2: Everything that [Jesus/the Bible] says is true.
  • C: Therefore, [statement X] is true.

Internally speaking, this is a perfectly sound syllogism, since the conclusion follows entirely from the premises. It is highly doubtful that the second premise - and therefore the conclusion as well - is true, but that does not make this a non sequitur. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:21, 25 February 2008 (EST)

That is more of a begging the question then a non-sequitur.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Goatspeed! 08:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Yes, or maybe a form of fallacy of many questions. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:01, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Hey Doc, I moved the one you put in place of Turing's. Can we possibly find one that people really do use, one day? "Real" examples are so much cooler (after the absurd ones, of course, that make it obvious what a non sequitur is). humanUser talk:Human 14:15, 25 February 2008 (EST)

That shouldn't be too difficult. Let's have a look at CP... --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:43, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Haha, nice work! humanUser talk:Human 15:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Men and machines[edit]

I'm concerned about this example. Specifically

P1) If each man had a definite set of rules of conduct by which he regulated his life he would be no better than a machine.
Objection 1)...says nothing about whether or not men can be machines, but whether they would be better than machines.
However, if we take "machine" to mean something that merely obeys rules in an input-output fashion, this makes more sense. The use of "better than" is an issue here because one can reword it in slightly less abstract terms to see that the point is about whether a human has greater capabilities beyond the input-output relationship.
Objection 2) it ignores the possibility that men could be machines without such definite rules.
Again, depends on how this set of premises define "machine". If it's restricted to input-output then following definitive rules is a key property of "machine", therefore the concept of a "machine" without such definite rules is nonsensical. Such a possibility fails the membership test for "machine", so the conclusion from the premises still follow.

In short, I'm not convinced by this example as a non-sequitur. The conclusion follows the premises, only by demonstrating that P2 is not true would the conclusion be shown to be false. Secondly, the definition of "machine" in the conclusion is dependent upon the definition of "machine" in P1. It is only a non-sequitur if these are semantically mismatched (a common trait of very subtle non-sequiturs and logical failures). Scarlet A.pnggnosticModerator 01:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Non Sequiturs about previous mistakes[edit]

Hi, i thought of an idea that may apply: you probably know of Science was wrong before. I found that the core idea can work both ways on many topics: economical system (socialism), social movement (feminism), politics (liberal)... The idea is mainly this: when an ideological system has been around for a while, and withstood a fair share of criticism, some of its proponents will inevitably counter those who criticize ANY ELEMENT in their ideology by saying "But people stood against this system in the past, and they were proven wrong / defeated in a debate." The problem would be that the opponent is talking about an element of this ideology that hasn't been debated or discussed yet, possibly a recently emerging element (it could be a new premise for this ideology or some new set of actions it dictates; maybe it is the corruption of the original idea into something else by a few members or overall - sort of like an anti-racism ideology that spawns new members who act racist against the "original oppressors / racists"). It has some sort of Association fallacy, as proponents claim that since the first debated premises of their ideology are right / moral, then so must every single premise to come after it too, no place for criticism. Should we add this idea? Imadmagician (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


if we accept this now - YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE NEXT!!!!111111 --Scherben (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)