1
$\begingroup$

A Porsche is a fast car. Dan's car is not a Porsche. Therefore, Dan's car is not fast.

Let P(x) be a Porsche

Let C(x) be a fast car

Let x be Dan

$$P(x) \rightarrow C(x) :premise$$

$$\neg P(x) :premise$$

$$\equiv C(x) :False\rightarrow anything = False$$

$$or$$ $$\equiv \neg C(x) : Modus Pollens$$

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dan is definitely not a fast car. (what's $x$?) $\endgroup$ – Karolis Juodelė Sep 28 '13 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ @DonLarynx : Karolis's comment is what I meant when I thought OP was confused in his symbols ; I'd admit I didn't try to figure out an example of the confusion. Thanks for pointing it out Karolis. (I believe the answers helped OP understand better now though! :D ) $\endgroup$ – Patrick Da Silva Sep 29 '13 at 9:50
4
$\begingroup$

We need for $C(x)$ to denote the car $x$ is a fast car.

I'm not clear what you're trying to conclude, but we cannot conclude $\lnot C$. We cannot conclude anything about how fast Dan's car only from the knowledge that his car is not a Porche.

We know Porches are fast, but other makes and models may also be fast, perhaps faster! And Dan may have a fast, "non-Porche" car.

In general: From $$P \rightarrow Q$$ $$\lnot P$$ we cannot conclude $\lnot Q$. That's a fallacy in reasoning: sometimes called "denying the antecedent".

The error is that:

  • It's a misapplication of modus ponens, which tells us that $$P\rightarrow Q$$ $$P$$ $$\therefore Q$$
  • or a misapplication of modus tollens which tells us that $$P \rightarrow Q$$ $$\lnot Q$$ $$\therefore \lnot P$$
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Not necessarily. Denying the consequent (modus tollens) would yield "If the car is not fast, it is not a porsche". However, you seem to be denying the antecedent, a fallacy.

For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, Just read the denying the antecendentss, this is an incorrect argument! $\endgroup$ – GivenPie Sep 28 '13 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ It is incorrect because you are negating the premise and concluding. False premises may lead to true conclusions (see your truth table). e.g. If a turtle is fast, and Michael Jordan can play basketball, then I am on stackexchange. One premise is false, one is true, yet the conclusion is true. $\endgroup$ – Don Larynx Sep 28 '13 at 19:40
0
$\begingroup$

You cannot conclude that Dan's car is not fast. Dan may have a car that is fast and is not a Porsche.

You seem confused in your symbols.

Hope that helps,

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You're begging the question. WHY may Dan have a car that is fast? What logical error is he committing? How specifically is he mis-using the symbols? $\endgroup$ – Don Larynx Sep 28 '13 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ @DonLarynx : Sure, I didn't explain as much as you did. I understand your second point. But what do you mean by "You're begging the question."? $\endgroup$ – Patrick Da Silva Sep 29 '13 at 1:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dan may have a car that is fast and is not a Porsche. - Why, does that logically make sense? $\endgroup$ – Don Larynx Sep 29 '13 at 5:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.