Difference between revisions of "Non sequitur fallacy"
From Atheism United
m |
m |
||
| 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]]. | ||
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.
