Difference between revisions of "Non sequitur fallacy"
From Atheism United
(Created page with "Literally translates to 'does not follow'. In older science fiction films, a stereotypical computer or robot response might be, "Does not compute." The conclusion sim...") |
m |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Literally translates to 'does not follow'. In older [[science fiction]] films, a stereotypical computer or robot response might be, "[[Does not compute | + | Literally translates to 'does not follow'. In older [[science fiction]] films, a stereotypical computer or robot response might be, "[[Does not compute]]." |
The conclusion simply has no logical connection to the premises. This is perhaps the most general of all [[fallacies]]. | The conclusion simply has no logical connection to the premises. This is perhaps the most general of all [[fallacies]]. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Technically, the example is also an [[argument from incredulity]], [[argument from ignorance]], and a [[god of the gaps fallacy]], but it also fits as a [[non sequitur fallacy]] simply because it makes no fucking sense. | Technically, the example is also an [[argument from incredulity]], [[argument from ignorance]], and a [[god of the gaps fallacy]], but it also fits as a [[non sequitur fallacy]] simply because it makes no fucking sense. | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Fallacies]] |
Latest revision as of 16:16, 16 November 2011
Literally translates to 'does not follow'. In older science fiction films, a stereotypical computer or robot response might be, "Does not compute."
The conclusion simply has no logical connection to the premises. This is perhaps the most general of all fallacies.
Example: "Fucking magnets! How do they work‽ ... Therefore god."
Technically, the example is also an argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance, and a god of the gaps fallacy, but it also fits as a non sequitur fallacy simply because it makes no fucking sense.
