Difference between revisions of "Talk:Non sequitur"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: ==Example== "The most common example of non sequitur is any attempt to infer causation from correlation alone. An argument of causality--that is, that X caused Y--is always subject to wea...) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
# (In fact another event, Z, actually caused both Y and X, but is not explored.) | # (In fact another event, Z, actually caused both Y and X, but is not explored.) | ||
--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 15:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT) | --[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 15:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Thats not a non sequetr is it? {{User:DS}}[[User:DS|DS]] 15:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:45, May 15, 2007
Example
"The most common example of non sequitur is any attempt to infer causation from correlation alone. An argument of causality--that is, that X caused Y--is always subject to weakening if one can show that:
- Y could have occurred with or without X.
- Another event, Z, actually caused Y.
- Y caused X rather than X causing Y. "
I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
An argument which is a non-sequitur might proceed:
- Y occurred, closely followed by X.
- We conclude that Y caused X (or even X caused Y)
- (In fact another event, Z, actually caused both Y and X, but is not explored.)
--AvengingAngel 15:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)