Talk:Fallacy of exclusive premises

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Syllogism#Types|EOO-4 type]] The anchor (Types) has been deleted.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Some fish are not whales?

Um, all fish are not whales. Angryapathy (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the example to address this. Dcwaterboy (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All fishes are not whales," is an E proposition without existential import in Boolean logic.--478jjjz (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is still confusing the example. The minor premise, Some Fish are not whales, is only true if "Fish" is intended in a non-scientific sense, as in sea creatures, or things that live in water. However, the major premise is only true if "Fish" is intended in a scientific sense, as clearly there are indeed mammals that live in water. Thus, regardless of the intention to use it as an example of a syllogistic fallacy, we never reach a clear understanding of why, due to encountering a Fallacy of Equivocation in the premises themselves. This example needs to be changed to something that is *only* a Fallacy of Exclusive Premises. Memige (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A better example

I feel like the two examples given, although good demonstrations of the fallacy, might confuse readers because the conclusions are both true. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in fallacies but I have been able to come with something which I hope is a valid EEO-4 fallacy: 1. No water are potatoes 2. Some potatoes are not H₂O 3. Therefore, some H₂O is not water Should I replace the second example with this? I feel like it would be reckless to do so without a second opinion.EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]