| Illicit Contraposition |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Invalid Form
>
Illicit Contraposition
|
Logical Fallacy of Illicit ContrapositionIllicit contraposition 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 Logical Fallacy of Illicit Contraposition occurs when the subject and predicate terms of a categorical proposition are swapped and negated (adding not or no). INVALID FORM "No A are B. Therefore, no non-B are non-A."
"Some A are B. Therefore, some non-B are non-A." Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Illicit Contraposition
Notice that this matches the first form, but the order of the elements is different. It would be more awkward to say, "No adultery is agape love. Therefore, no non-adultery is not agape love."
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionFormally Correct Fallacy Affirming the Consequent Commutation of Conditionals Affirming a Disjunct Denying the Antecedent Illicit Process Illicit Major Illicit Minor Invalid form using All Invalid form using \"Some\" Unwarranted Contrast Denying a Conjunct Positive Conclusion from Negative Premises Illicit Affirmative Existential Instantiation Exclusive Premises Fallacy of Four Terms Fallacy of Necessity Fallacy of False Conversion Hooded Man Fallacy Confusing \"if\" with \"if and only if\" Improper Transposition Invalid form using \"OR\" Confusion of \"Necessary\" with a \"Sufficient\" Condition Galileo Argument (Formal) Four Terms Fallacy Recently Viewed |
