Can a valid syllogism be fallacious?
For example
God can speak Mandarin.
Charity is God.
∴ Charity can speak Mandarin.
David can speak Tagalog.
David's bones are David.
∴ David's bones can speak Tagalog.
I'm pretty sure these are valid but unsound syllogisms, and I think they both commit the fallacy of division, but if the premises were true, would the conclusion also be true? I thought of an analogous syllogism that's sound, and I just can't figure this puzzler out.
Basalt is rock.
Rock is natural.
∴ Basalt is natural.
- Read more about Can a valid syllogism be fallacious?
- 1 comment
- Log in to post comments