Accused of a fallacy? Suspect a fallacy? Ask Dr. Bo and the community!

Quickly register to comment, ask and respond to questions, and get FREE access to our passive online course on cognitive biases!
Register!

one moment please...



Quantifier-Shift Fallacy

(also known as: illicit quantifier shift)

Description: A fallacy of reversing the order of two quantifiers.

Logical Form:

Every X has a related Y.

Therefore, there is some Y related to every X.

Example #1:

Everybody has a mother.

Therefore, there is some woman out there who is the mother of us all.

Explanation: While it is true that everyone has (or had) a mother, the term “mother” is not a singular term that is shared -- it is implied that it is a category in which many mothers reside.  The conclusion is asserting the opposite of the meaning -- that there is actually just one mother shared by everyone.  This form of reasoning is invalid; therefore, fallacious.

Example #2:

Everybody has a brain.

Therefore, there is a single brain we all share.

Explanation: Everybody has his or her own brain, not one we all share.  Although I have met many people who seem not to have their own brain.  This form of reasoning is invalid; therefore, fallacious.

Exception: None.

References:

Cook, R. T. (2009). A Dictionary of Philosophical Logic. Edinburgh University Press.



Registered User Comments

epic
Friday, August 17, 2018 - 08:50:26 PM
does this apply to evolution when they say we 95% similarites to chimpanzee? because when you think about it a buss and a car is very similar are they related? well no. so i'm wondering if this is an logical fallacy on evolutionst part?

login to reply
Show All 11 Replies

currently showing last 10

loading...
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

 

epic
Saturday, August 18, 2018 - 05:49:34 PM
@Bo Bennett, PhD: that's not my question. yes i know we share similiar 96%. my point being is this: they are telling us that because we are similiar to chimpanzee therefore we must be related to chimpazees. do you get what i'm saying? To me that is an fallacy because just because they are similiar doesn't mean they are related. Let's take Buss and a car. i mean buss and a car is probably 90% similar does that mean they are related? no. they are similar because of they have the same structures. the same goes for chimpanzee and humans.

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

 

Bo Bennett, PhD
Saturday, August 18, 2018 - 07:53:42 PM
@epic: If anyone argued "because we are similar to chimpanzee therefore we must be related to chimpanzees" then sure, that is fallacious (a simple non-sequitur). Bun honestly, that sounds like a creationist's strawman version of the science. Humans and chimps descended from the same ancestor (i.e. are related) because, as Francis Collins puts it, the "evidence is overwhelming." See http://www.beliefnet.com/news/science-religion/2006/08/god-is-not-threatened-by-our-scientific-adventures.aspx .

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

 

epic
Sunday, August 19, 2018 - 12:08:16 PM
@Bo Bennett, PhD: I've done research into evolution , what i've find that there are no scientific evidence to support an idea of natural selection nor mutation invent. Inother words there are no evidence to support that through mutation or natural selection invent new function. Let's say you have gen for your leg there are no evidence to suggest that gene for the leg changes function. Infact there are studies that disprove the idea which debunks evolution as a whole. (http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2) http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/download/BIO-C.2015.2/90

This is what I had to say about these reports " natural selection in some degree have infact an function or an purpose and that is called "selective opimization". They did this experiment using "lactamase" enzyme in other words it enable the bacteria to survive in the presence of penicillin. The penicillin is bound to it but the enzyme breakes the pencillin and enabled bacteria to get attached to penicillin. So they made the process of mutation to occur. In the result the bacteria was more resistent to penicillin than the starting point. So this time they tried with an handicapped version of the "beta lactamse" and it turns out that
it can survive a very low amount of pencillin simmilar to to the other one.However natural selection fail to be what it is represents for. They tried many selection round but it didn't have any activity. The explanation is "selective optimination" in otherwords it need to have an proper enzyme ,in order for the selection to cause these improvements . Inother words it can't invent to improve but that doesn't stop at all folks. It's getting even worse, so they had anoher experiment where they have an enzyme called trip A that for most of the part that is used to make largest of the 20 amino acid, this amino acid is called "tryptophan". and it ofcourse essential for cells to make



. you have to have two amino acid to this be working. When they put these two enzyme it actually turns out that it completly KILLED THE ENZYME also the other one badly wounded the enzyme but not completly kill it . then they combined the two mutations so both of them are present in the gene that produce protein. They later on put this gene in bacterial cells and gave the cells a very small of amount of the aminoacid "tryptophan" to grow on. In other words tryptophan is an seed for the cell. Keep in mind they added a little bit of tryptophan, remember it is an population of cells. You would expect that, you get mutation that would go revert the change that killed the enzyme and the result of that would be a wounded enzyme and later on the cells would grow up and be selected, so the last step would also mean that it would revert that mutation and have an functional enzyme that makes tryptophan . In other words there were two changes one that kill the enzyme and other one wounded it . and as i said in the following you would have to undo the one that killed enzyme then you would have the wounded enzyme. lol But to sum it up, in natural selection you would have to move up in fittness by undoing the failure or inother words the mutation that kills the enzyme and then it would go back in process to an functional enzyme. Funny thing this didn't happen at all. All the cultures lost the gene. it turned that it was be easier to get rid of this useless gene that wasn't doing any benefitial at all" I would admit this one is sloppy but that's why i sent you two studies where you can read for your self.

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

 

Bo Bennett, PhD
Sunday, August 19, 2018 - 01:46:55 PM
@epic:
I've done research into evolution...

Consider what you are saying. You have done some Googling and found websites that support your religious view, therefore, the tens of thousands of scientists (of whom about half are Christian) who spend their lives doing hands on research (lab and field work) are all wrong. If you think you have disproved evolution by natural selection, publish a paper, present it to academic journals, and claim your Nobel Prize. I will be the first to congratulate you. Until then, this forum is strictly about logical fallacies, not about evolution, so please keep your posts on topic.

login to reply
 
1 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

 

epic
Tuesday, August 21, 2018 - 10:10:46 AM
@Bo Bennett, PhD: oki sorry didn't want to bother. I have another question about logical fallacies. Is this one a fallacy :
atheist: I will not believe in a God until I got the evidence
me: what evidence do you expect from a God?
atheist : I don't know.

is this non-sequitir?

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

 

Bo Bennett, PhD
Tuesday, August 21, 2018 - 10:15:29 AM
@epic: Not a non-sequitur, because "I don't know" can always follow. Consider this:
theist: I will not give up my belief in God until the evidence for no God surpassed that of a God.
me: What evidence are you expecting?
theist: I don't know.

Perfectly valid answer. Evidence is discovered, meaning until it is discovered, we don't know about it.

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

 

epic
Tuesday, August 21, 2018 - 05:37:26 PM
@Bo Bennett, PhD: When you are at a crimescene, don't you require certain evidence to know if it is an homicide or not?

If an atheist do not know what evidence to expect then it doesn't matter if i present my evidence because that person would reject it eitherways. Wouldn't it be better if that atheist has some requirements?



login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

 

Bo Bennett, PhD
Tuesday, August 21, 2018 - 06:14:32 PM
@epic: You are fallaciously assuming that "I don't know" equals an automatic rejection of your evidence. This is simply not the case. When I was a global warming skeptic (many years ago) I honestly had no idea what evidence would convince me. It turned out that it was the understanding of the scientific method that ultimately convinced me that the climate change was a real problem.

To use your crime scene analogy, I might have some ideas what to look for, but it might be a piece of evidence discovered and unexpected that serves as the proof needed, such as a photo in the drawer of the murder being committed.

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

 

epic
Wednesday, August 22, 2018 - 09:32:56 AM
@Bo Bennett, PhD: okay thank you for clearing that out for me.but what if i actually give that person evidence. Then that person would just reject what i present and and will respond like this " that is not evidence for intelligent design or what ever". so it is nearly impossible to actually give evidence to an atheist. Many atheist sadly have an atheist thinking when you argue with them , when I give them evidence they will just deny it because of their worldview. :/. This happens to even christians and theists.

I always use abiogenesis as an argument for intelligent design. There two options of origin of life that could have happened that is through protein and Rna ribosome / ribosome.

we know that you need enzyme to create protein , since enzyme only produced by an biological processes it can't be any enzyme in prebiotic world. Which leads us to RNA theory. They believe that rna ribosome evolved to ribosome through million of years. This theory have some problems , one of them is that in chemistry you can't wait million of years it must happen quickly or othervise these molecules will oxidize. Secondly the process of producing rna ribosome need to have an enzyme which is called " peptidyl transferase." I don't have to go in grand detail if you are interested I can tell you how the process functions. However since "peptidyl transferase" is an enzyme , this one do not exist in prebiotic world. What remains is that there are no options , the only options we have is that someone created us or something supernatural.

many atheist i argue with they just ignore this and tells me no this is not evidence for God. or something. They are just trying to find a hole out. :/

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...

 

Bo Bennett, PhD
Wednesday, August 22, 2018 - 01:14:14 PM
@epic: Realize that "evidence" is not a binary thing. Some theists say trees are "evidence" for God. Obviously, atheists disagree. Evidence does have a more strict meaning in the scientific and legal domains, so this supersedes any biases that theists or atheists may have. So let's look at your "evidence".

There two options of origin of life that could have happened that is through protein and Rna ribosome / ribosome.

Right there is a false dichotomy. There are not just two options. Aliens could have created us, God could have used abiogenesis for the creation of life, Any other god or multitude of gods could have created us, or life could have begun in one of millions of other ways that we don't know about.

we know that you need enzyme to create protein...

Once again, unless your are a molecular biologist, why should anyone accept what you say over the hundreds of thousands of biologists who disagree with your conclusion? Anyone even remotely familiar with the scientific literature in this field knows that abiogensis is the prevailing theory accepted among virtually all biologists and no such impossibilities that you suggest actually exist.

Based on what you have arguing here, it is very clear why atheists you argue with with rejecting your evidence... because your evidence is on par with "look a tree, therefore God." This is not even close to scientific evidence and it based on misunderstandings of the actual science and fabrications of the truth.

login to reply
 
0 votes
 
Reply To Comment
working...



Become a Logical Fallacy Master. Choose Your Poison.

Logically Fallacious is one of the most comprehensive collections of logical fallacies with all original examples and easy to understand descriptions; perfect for educators, debaters, or anyone who wants to improve his or her reasoning skills.

Get the book, Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett, PhD by selecting one of the following options:


Not Much of a Reader? No Problem!

Enroll in the Mastering Logical Fallacies Online Course. Over 10 hours of video and interactive learning. Go beyond the book!

Enroll in the Fallacy-A-Day Passive Course. Sit back and learn fallacies the easy way—in just a few minutes per day, via e-mail delivery.

Have a podcast or know someone who does? Putting on a conference? Dr. Bennett is available for interviews and public speaking events. Contact him directly here.


About Archieboy Holdings, LLC. Privacy Policy Other Books Written by Bo
 Website Software Copyright 2018, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.