Talk:Fallacy of necessity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would change this to "FALSE Necessity," as there are times when necessity is valid.JBDay 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I concur. Dhvrm 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Example: Confusing?
I consider the example provided to be confusing to the average user, because it is based in a semantic understanding of the word "necessity" that is new or unusual to most persons. I propose an alternative example:
a) Bachelors are necessarily unmarried. b) John is a bachelor. c) John cannot marry.
In this case, the example still bears out a degree of necessity that is not the case, but is far more clear. Dhvrm 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Worth of example
There was an edit made to the article by 76.210.61.229 that looks like it belongs here:
"N.B. Actually this is a poor example. B does not follow from A (which gives no information about John), and, not knowing what was in the mind of the person who wrote this, must be assumed to be a given for the example to be valid. In the explanation, the writer proceeds to set up a straw man argument, another fallacy in which the arguer sets up a weak argument just to refute it. C does not in fact suggest that it is inconceivable for John to marry, merely that following from A and B he must be unmarried. (if P then Q, if Q then R, -> if P then R). Also, the writer states that only A is necessarily true, meaning that B is not given, and since it does not logically follow from A, there is no way to conclude that John actually is a bachelor.
I suggest a new example."
Djk3 (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Per this and my previous comment, I have changed the example. Dhvrm (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

