Talk:Deductive fallacy

A fact from Deductive fallacy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 5,400 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a deductive fallacy is an argument that has true premises, but may still have a false conclusion?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/September.

Wikipedia

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

I can't think of why

  1. The average family has 2.5 children.
  2. The Smiths are an average family.
  3. Therefore, the Smiths must have 2 or 3 children.

is wrong. either provide an expelenation or remove it from the examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because the Smith's couldn't have 2.5 children, because that value is discrete Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is a confusing and bad example. The problem is your mixing a property of an entity clearly defined in the premise with ill-defined colloquial jargon in the second step. I am replacing it with something better. Byates5637 (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Logical fallacy

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Both the formal fallacy and the deductive fallacy articles claim that their alternative name is "Logical fallacy". Currently, Logical fallacy redirects to deductive fallacy. This needs to be clarified. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Rename

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If this article is indeed the proper logical fallacy article, how about renaming it from Deductive fallacy to Logical fallacy per existing category? (We have Category:Logical fallacies but not Category:Deductive fallacies). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Merge with formal fallacy or delete the page

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We have a page for formal fallacies, why do we need one for deductive fallacies as well. I believe these terms are generally used interchangeably the author cited for the definition seems to do so saying, "An invalid argument is also known as a formal fallacy or a deductive fallacy." The page tries to draw a distinction between the two by saying that some inductive arguments can be formally fallacious as well. Interesting and possibly true claim, but not citation is provided.

As it is, the page defines deductive fallacy to mean deductive invalidity. We already have a much better page on validity that discusses that concept, and under more standard terminology.

Finally, this page cites only a web page that refers to a self-published pamphlet by a philosophy professor to support its claims.

We should delete this page or merge it with formal fallacy as it covers essentially the same territory. If we can find sources to support the distinction, then perhaps a note in the page on validity or formal fallacies discussing it would be better than an entire page. Original Position (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic