Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
Exclusive premises fallacy is a formal fallacy that covers up the problem when reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.
The Fallacy of Exclusive Premises occurs when a syllogism has two negative premises. Only one premise can be negative if the conclusion is negative. With two negative premises, you cannot support a negative conclusion or a positive conclusion. If both of the premises are positive, you cannot support a negative concluson. If the conclusion is positive, both premises must be positive. If the conclusion is negative, one of the premises must be negative and the other premise must be positive.
Invalid Form
"No A are B.
Some B are not C.
Therefore, some C are not A."
or
"No A are B.
No B are C.
Therefore, no C are A."
Examples of the Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
"No followers of Christ are following their own way.
Some who are following their own way are not Atheists.
Therefore, some Atheists are not followers of Christ."
No categorical syllogism that contains two negative premises, as this one does, has sound reasoning--even if both premises and the conclusion are all true.
"No creation scientists are evolutionists.
No evolutionists are convinced by evidence.
Therefore, no one who is convinced by evidence is a creation scientist."
No categorical syllogism that contains two negative premises, as this one does, has sound reasoning.
"No Christians are Atheists.
Some Atheists are not Evolutionists.
Therefore, some Evolutionists are not Christians."
The conclusion may be true, and the premises may be true, but the logic is not sound. In other words, by this logic, the conclusion cannot be known to be true.
Author/Compiler
Last updated: Sep, 2014
Bread Crumbs
Home
>
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Invalid Form
>
Exclusive Premises
Main
Foundations
Home
Meaning
Bible
Dictionary
History
Toons & Vids
Quotations
Similar
Formally Correct Fallacy / According to the Rules Fallacy (type of)
Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent / Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term
Logical Fallacy of Commutation of Conditionals / Fallacy of the Consequent / Converting a Conditional
Logical Fallacy of Affirming a Disjunct / Fallacy of the Alternative Disjunct / False Exclusionary Disjunct / Affirming One Disjunct / Logical Fallacy of the Alternative Syllogism / Asserting an Alternative / Improper Disjunctive Syllogism / Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent / Inverse Error / Fallacy of the Inverse / Invalid modus tollens
Logical Fallacy of Illicit Process
Logical Fallacy of Illicit Major
Logical Fallacy of Illicit Minor
Logical Fallacy of Invalid form using All
Logical Fallacy of Invalid form using "Some"
Logical Fallacy of Unwarranted Contrast / Some Are-Some Are Not
Logical Fallacy of Denying a Conjunct
Logical Fallacy of Negative Premise / Illicit Negative / Drawing a Positive Conclusion from Negative Premises
Logical Fallacy of Drawing a Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises / Illicit Affirmative
Logical Fallacy of Existential Instantiation / Existential Fallacy
Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
Logical Fallacy of Four Terms
Logical Fallacy of Necessity / Felacia Necassitas
Logical Fallacy of False Conversion / Illicit Conversion
Logical Fallacy of Illicit Contraposition
Formal Logical Fallacy Illicit Substitution of Identicals / Hooded Man Fallacy / Masked Man Fallacy / Intensional Fallacy / Epistemic Fallacy / Leibniz' Law Fallacy
Formal Logical Fallacy of Confusing "if" with "if and only if"
Logical Fallacy of Negating Antecedent and Consequent / Improper Transposition
Logical Fallacy of Invalid form using "OR"
Logical Fallacy of Confusion of "Necessary" with "Sufficient" Condition
Galileo Wannabe Fallacy / Galileo Argument (Formal)
Four Terms Fallacy / Quaternio Terminorum
Recent
Home
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Circular Reasoning
Argument to the Future
Insignificant Cause
Word Magic
Love Between a Man and Woman
Author/Compiler
Colossians 2
Righteousness & Holiness
Don't Compromise
Sin
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
Genuine Authority
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
Featured
The Real Purpose of the Church
The Real Purpose of Life
From Glory to Glory
REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT
REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT
How to be Led by God
How to Witness
Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality
Holiness & Mind/Soul
Redemption: Free From Sin
Real Reality
Stories Versus Revelation
Understanding Logic
Logical Fallacies
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
God's Word
God's Process
God's Pattern
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Twisting Science
Evolutionism
Public School Failures
Twisting History
How can we know anything about anything?
That's the real question
|