Is implication a more subtle form of logic?

Answer 1

no. some implications are not logical. lots of wrong assumptions are made because of wrong implications, and vice versa. ergo, your logical fallacies.

Answer 2

Implications often hide logical fallacies, either intentionally or simply as the result of sloppy thinking. Implications, I've noticed, also not uncommonly mask things like racial stereotypes, or ad hominems. Implications can certainly be subtle, but much more often than not have nothing to do with logic.

Answer 3

I don't think so, in that, implication rarely requires a proof.
Implication usually results in a derived consequence and occasionally depends on the individual for interpretation.

What a great question!

Answer 4

Implication is one possible relation between the premise(s) of an argument and its conclusion.

If an argument is sound (is not fallacious and all its premises are true) then its premise(s) imply its conclusion.

However, an argument can have a false premise and yet still imply its conclusion. For example:

Horses can swim the backstroke. (false)
Therefore, horses can swim. (true)

Answer 5

No. My atheism is me doubting your claims to know that the particular hypothetical God, that you are imagining, is actually real. Doubt is not narcissism. Narcissism is a lot more like you smiling at the thought that some hypothetical creator of the universe is fascinated by your every thought and action, because such a hypothetical fascination makes perfect sense to you. -- Regards, John Popelish

Answer 6

TO IMPLY HMMM prove to be connected with a crime is logical

Answer 7

I think so, but most people are too dense to pick up on it.

Answer 8

maybe...