Difference between revisions of "Non sequitur fallacy"

From Atheism United
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Literally translates to 'does not follow'. In older [[science fiction]] films, a stereotypical computer or robot response might be, "[[Does not compute]]"
+
Literally translates to 'does not follow'. In older [[science fiction]] films, a stereotypical computer or robot response might be, "[[Does not compute]]."
  
 
The conclusion simply has no logical connection to the premises. This is perhaps the most general of all [[fallacies]].
 
The conclusion simply has no logical connection to the premises. This is perhaps the most general of all [[fallacies]].

Latest revision as of 16:16, 16 November 2011

Literally translates to 'does not follow'. In older science fiction films, a stereotypical computer or robot response might be, "Does not compute."

The conclusion simply has no logical connection to the premises. This is perhaps the most general of all fallacies.

Example: "Fucking magnets! How do they work ... Therefore god."

Technically, the example is also an argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance, and a god of the gaps fallacy, but it also fits as a non sequitur fallacy simply because it makes no fucking sense.