Non sequitur (logic)

Non sequitur (logic)

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

Contents

Non sequitur in everyday speech

See also: Derailment (thought disorder)

In everyday speech, a non sequitur is a statement in which the final part is totally unrelated to the first part, for example:

Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.
—West with the Night, Beryl Markham[2]

It can also refer to a response that is totally unrelated to the original statement or question:

Mary: I wonder how Mrs. Knowles next door is doing.
Jim: Did you hear that the convenience store two blocks over got robbed last night? Thieves got away with a small fortune.[3]

Fallacy of the undistributed middle

Main article: Fallacy of the undistributed middle

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy. More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur.

The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:

  1. All Zs are Bs.
  2. Y is a B.
  3. Therefore, Y is a Z.

It may or may not be the case that "all Zs are Bs," but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion. What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that "all Bs are Zs," which is ignored in the argument.

Note that if the terms were swapped around in the first co-premise or if the first premise was rewritten to "Only Zs can be Bs" then it would no longer be a fallacy, although it could still be unsound. This also holds for the following two logical fallacies which are similar in nature to the fallacy of the undistributed middle and also non sequiturs.

An example can be given as follows:

  1. Men are human.
  2. Mary is human.
  3. Therefore, Mary is a man.

Affirming the consequent

Main article: Affirming the consequent

Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur

  1. If A is true, then B is true.
  2. B is true.
  3. Therefore, A is true.

Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.

An example of affirming the consequent would be:

  1. If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B)
  2. I am a mammal. (B)
  3. Therefore, I am a human. (A)

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises: I could be another type of mammal without also being a human. The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premises - it is a 'non sequitur'.

Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but using propositions rather than set membership.

Denying the antecedent

Main article: Denying the antecedent

Another common non sequitur is this:

  1. If A is true, then B is true.
  2. A is false.
  3. Therefore, B is false.

While the conclusion can indeed be false, this cannot be linked to the premise since the statement is a non sequitur. This is called denying the antecedent.

An example of denying the antecedent would be:

  1. If I am Japanese, then I am Asian.
  2. I am not Japanese.
  3. Therefore, I am not Asian.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement could be Asian, but for example Chinese, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Affirming a disjunct

Main article: Affirming a disjunct

Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:

  1. A is true or B is true.
  2. B is true.
  3. Therefore, A is not true.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both true. This fallacy stems from the stated definition of or in propositional logic to be inclusive.

An example of affirming a disjunct would be:

  1. I am at home or I am in the city.
  2. I am at home.
  3. Therefore, I am not in the city.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could have her home in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true. However, this statement is false because the initial premise is false, their are many possible places other than home or the city.

Denying a conjunct

Main article: Denying a conjunct

Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:

  1. It is not the case that both A is true and B is true.
  2. B is not true.
  3. Therefore, A is true.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both false.

An example of denying a conjunct would be:

  1. It is not the case that both I am at home and I am in the city.
  2. I am not at home.
  3. Therefore, I am in the city.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could neither be at home nor in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

See also

References

  1. ^ Barker, Stephen F. (2003) [1965]. "Chapter 6: Fallacies". The Elements of Logic (Sixth edition ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. pp. 160–169. ISBN 0-07-283235-5. 
  2. ^ Quoted in Hindes, Steve (2005). Think for Yourself!: an Essay on Cutting through the Babble, the Bias, and the Hype. Fulcrum Publishing. pp. 86. ISBN 1555915396. http://books.google.com/books?id=h2HHJeVTrU8C&pg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false. Retrieved 2011-10-04. 
  3. ^ Board, Prudy Taylor (2003). 101 Tips on Writing and Selling Your First Novel. iUniverse. pp. 121. ISBN 0595293131. http://books.google.com/books?id=mTnUsi-jxD4C&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q&f=false. Retrieved 2011-10-04. 
v · d · eFallacies of relevance
General
Appeals to emotion
Fear · Flattery · Nature · Novelty · Pity · Ridicule · Children's interests · Invented Here · Island mentality · Not Invented Here · Repugnance · Spite
Genetic fallacies
Appeals to consequences

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужен реферат?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Non sequitur — (pronounced /nɒnˈsɛkwɪtər/) is Latin for it does not follow. It is most often used as a noun to describe illogical statements. Non sequitur may refer to: Non sequitur (literary device), an irrelevant, often humorous comment to a preceding topic… …   Wikipedia

  • Non sequitur (literary device) — A non sequitur (Latin for It does not follow; pronounced /ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɨtər/) is a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes. It is a comment that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what it follows,[1]… …   Wikipedia

  • non sequitur — I noun anacoluthon, bad logic, circular reasoning, contradiction of terms, disconnectedness, discontinuity, fallacious argument, fallacious reasoning, fallacy, false reasoning, flaw in the argument, illogical conclusion, illogical deduction,… …   Law dictionary

  • Non sequitur — Non seq ui*tur [L., it does not follow.] (Logic) An inference which does not follow from the premises. [1913 Webster] …   The Collaborative International Dictionary of English

  • non sequitur — [nän΄ sek′wi tər] n. [L, lit., it does not follow] 1. Logic a conclusion or inference which does not follow from the premises: abbrev. non seq. 2. a remark having no bearing on what has just been said …   English World dictionary

  • Non sequitur (humor) — A non sequitur (pronounced|ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɨtɚ) is a conversational and literary device, often used for comical purposes (as opposed to its use in formal logic). It is a comment which, due to its lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows, is… …   Wikipedia

  • non sequitur — /non sek wi teuhr, toor /; Lat. /nohn se kwi toordd / 1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. 2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion. [ < L: it does not follow] * * * …   Universalium

  • List of topics in logic — This is a list of topics in logic.See also: List of mathematical logic topicsAlphabetical listAAbacus logic Abduction (logic) Abductive validation Affine logic Affirming the antecedent Affirming the consequent Antecedent Antinomy Argument form… …   Wikipedia

  • Outline of logic — The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to logic: Logic – formal science of using reason, considered a branch of both philosophy and mathematics. Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and… …   Wikipedia

  • Paraconsistent logic — A paraconsistent logic is a logical system that attempts to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing paraconsistent (or… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
… Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”