From pycyn@aol.com Tue Feb 19 08:05:02 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 19 Feb 2002 16:05:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 73589 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2002 16:05:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Feb 2002 16:05:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 2002 16:05:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.149.9bd16f4 (4509) for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:14:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <149.9bd16f4.29a3b7cd@aol.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:14:37 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] [OT]Argumentum ad elephantum To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_149.9bd16f4.29a3b7cd_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13370 --part1_149.9bd16f4.29a3b7cd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/19/2002 2:12:58 AM Central Standard Time, edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu writes: > It is the purest of non sequiturs. The premises > are all false. > To end a good summary on this issue with this remark is unfortunate as it seems to say that an argument with all false premises is a pure non sequitur. It may be, of course, (and, I think, in this case is), but not because the premises are false. Non-sequitur is any argument whose conclusion does not follow from its premises, regardless of the status of the premises. Indeed, in the weakest sense of "folllows from" (but not in the sense intended here) any conclusion follows from a false premise. --part1_149.9bd16f4.29a3b7cd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/19/2002 2:12:58 AM Central Standard Time, edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu writes:


It is the purest of non sequiturs. The premises
are all false.


To end a good summary on this issue with this remark is unfortunate as it seems to say that an argument with all false premises is a pure non sequitur.  It may be, of course, (and, I think, in this case is), but not because the premises are false.  Non-sequitur is any argument whose conclusion does not follow from its premises, regardless of the status of the premises.  Indeed, in the weakest sense of "folllows from" (but not in the sense intended here) any conclusion follows from a false premise. --part1_149.9bd16f4.29a3b7cd_boundary--