|
|
What Kind of logical fallacy is This?Goat eat grass,Human eat goat.That means Humans also eat grass.
What kind of logical fallacy is this? |
| asked on Thursday, Apr 11, 2019 11:03:21 AM by | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
Sounds more like a pun than a fallacy!
|
| answered on Thursday, Apr 11, 2019 11:08:08 AM by Bill |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
I don't really detect a logical fallacy here because the conclusion, while a bit of a stretch, is not deceptive nor is it a flat out error in reasoning. At least it could be argued: 'You are what you eat', and all that.
But I do detect a possible Fallacy of Weak Induction, where the connection between the premises and the conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion. At least that's what I'm coming up with off the cuff. |
| answered on Friday, Apr 12, 2019 12:58:28 PM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Goats are not grass. Multiple overlapping fallacies here.
|
| answered on Saturday, Apr 13, 2019 09:26:48 PM by Max |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
In kind: We all eat dead people. Their bodies decomposed and the molecules from their bodies traveled from corpse to tree and to the peach Brian just ate.
|
| answered on Saturday, Apr 13, 2019 09:33:53 PM by Max |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
I don't know the answer to that. Although the first two Statements are singular. Goat eat grass.Human eat goat. Than Humans eat grass appears to be fallacious . I'm new at this. It seems to fall into Inductive reasoning. Which would be a untruth. Can anyone help me with the fallacy it would be? If I'm even correct. Thx.
|
| answered on Sunday, Apr 14, 2019 04:19:36 AM by Max |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
P1. Goat[s] eat grass
P2. Human[s] eat goat[s]. C. Therefore, Humans also eat grass. In the most general sense, this is a non-sequitur . The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. More specifically, there is an implied claim that we eat what our food eats. This not true in a literal sense since "eat" means to take in through the mouth as food : ingest, chew, and swallow in turn . But if we are getting literal, we don't eat goats either... we eat parts of the goat, so it can be argued that we also eat part of the food that our food eats. Scientifically, when a food is consumed by a living creature, the food is transformed an only parts of it remain in the creature (the other parts are excreted). The food eaten by the creature that remain becomes more different than similar to the food originally eaten so to call that the food still is stretching the definition. |
| answered on Sunday, Apr 14, 2019 07:00:51 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |