Talk:Converse accident

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 articles

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Formal or Informal Fallacy?

The end of the article describes this as a formal fallacy, whereas the table following that statement lists converse accident as an informal fallacy. Is one correct? Can they both be true? 71.38.157.82 (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I think that the article is correct in saying it is a formal fallacy. As explained in the article, an exception does not overlap with the general rule, but the converse accident states that it does overlap, therefore the converse accident is a logical (formal) fallacy. 71.60.162.113 (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most official looking web-source relevant to this that a quick search brought up, from a minor university ([1]), lists it under informal fallacies. It makes sense, on reflection. This is essentially the same as Hasty Generalization, which is informal. Anyway, my understanding is that formal fallacies usually relate to deduction, and the examples given are (badly done) induction. I'll do some more looking, then edit.:--98.163.19.202 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but comment that I find it exceptionally funny that a page on logical fallacy is contradicting to itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.30.173 (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]