Example 1:
When it rains, the ground becomes wet. The ground is wet, therefore it must have rained.
Example 2:
The complex mechanical devices in watches are designed by humans. Humans contain complex devices, therefore they must be designed.
These 2 examples illustrate the same logical fallacy. Do you see it?
2006-12-12 07:42:33 · 23 answers · asked by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Jimbo:
You've completely missed the point.
2006-12-12 07:50:35 · update #1
A lot of you are missing the point. Hint: it's not about the watch.
2006-12-12 07:56:08 · update #2
yes just because scenario A occurs everytime scenario B occurs doesn't mean everytime Scenario A occurs scenario B has occured.
for example when a car runs out of gas it won't run, but just because a car won't run doesn't mean it is out of gas.
2006-12-12 07:46:47 · answer #1 · answered by tommyguard3 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It assumes that only ONE thing could have made the ground wet (what about sprinklers, incontinent dogs, etc.?), just as it assumes that only ONE thing could have made the complex devices of the human body.
Though, comparing humans to watches is a bit of a stretch anyway, logical fallacies considered or not.
2006-12-12 07:45:54 · answer #2 · answered by BabyBear 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The ground can become wet by a variety of means, not just rain. Secondly, only parts of humans can be augmented with complex devices i.e. man-made heart, hips etc. No I do not see any fallacy? What do you see.
2006-12-12 07:45:09 · answer #3 · answered by tiafromtijuana 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well, there is no "must" involved in either of these things. it doesn't matter why it is wet, it is just wet. it doesn't matter why a watch is designed, time and life still goes on as it does, with or without a watch.
and since what kind of complex dvice do humans "Contain"? their brains? in that sense, i suppose natural curiosity and creativity is what allows humans to develop complex devices..but i dont' know that i would call the human brain a Device.
2006-12-12 07:47:53 · answer #4 · answered by sasmallworld 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course. The effect does not necessarily have the same cause. HOWEVER, it does have a cause.
The ground is wet, not of its own, there was a cause.
Complex watches cannot make complex watches.
Humans can make humans. So to compare watches to humans is like comparing apples to oranges.
2006-12-12 07:50:12 · answer #5 · answered by Jose 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
im not 100% sure what your getting at, but it seems like both assume there is only one cause for any given effect. the ground can be wet for any number of reasons aside rain, so humans dont necessarily have to have been designed just because a watch was.
Im not sure if that is an answer but i hope it did
2006-12-12 07:47:32 · answer #6 · answered by maxworth 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The first one does contain a logical fallacy. there are a number of reasons why the ground could have been wet. But there is only ONE way to make a watch and that is to design a watch.
wow i totally misread the logic statement... but i'm still right heh.
2006-12-12 07:44:32 · answer #7 · answered by Let there be JIMBO 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Example 1: The ground is wet because I just peed there.
Example 2: Apples and oranges.
2006-12-12 07:45:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Example 1: The water could of just as easily seeped up from the ground to make it wet.
Example 2: That one is correct.
2006-12-12 07:46:56 · answer #9 · answered by Maurice H 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it doesnt have to have rained for the ground to be wet. a dog can take a leak and the ground will be wet, u can spill water and the ground will be wet, turn on the hose... the ground will get wet...
2006-12-12 07:47:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Those aren't proper syllogisms because there are other explanations for wet ground than rain and there are other explanations for the complex devices in our bodies.
2006-12-12 07:46:55 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋