Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9208014" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Howso? The specific problem with the &quot;I didn't have a problem, therefore there is no problem&quot; is that it generalizes from a particular claim (a negative existential quantifier) to a general claim (a negative universal quantifier.) That fault does not exist in the other. They aren't &quot;different levels of wrong.&quot; There's nothing wrong with the claim &quot;I had a problem, therefore a problem exists at least some of the time.&quot; That is a perfectly valid statement, and I have yet to see a single instance of someone claiming the wrong version, &quot;I had a problem, therefore everyone has a problem.&quot;The two claims are not the same. Their logical structure is different, and precisely that difference makes the former a fallacy, and the latter perfectly ordinary. As I said, it is of course better (more useful, stronger) to show not just that you and only you had a problem, that lots of people did. But there is literally no fallacy present in the claim. The only thing you can say about it is that, totally in isolation, it may not be a very strong claim. But a valid claim is still valid even if it happens to be weak.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9208014, member: 6790260"] Howso? The specific problem with the "I didn't have a problem, therefore there is no problem" is that it generalizes from a particular claim (a negative existential quantifier) to a general claim (a negative universal quantifier.) That fault [I]does not exist[/I] in the other. They aren't "different levels of wrong." There's [I]nothing wrong[/I] with the claim "I had a problem, therefore a problem exists at least some of the time." That is a perfectly valid statement, and I have yet to see a single instance of someone claiming the wrong version, "I had a problem, therefore [I]everyone[/I] has a problem." The two claims are not the same. Their logical structure is different, and precisely that difference makes the former a fallacy, and the latter perfectly ordinary. As I said, it is of course better (more useful, stronger) to show not just that [I]you and only you[/I] had a problem, that lots of people did. But there is literally no fallacy present in the claim. The only thing you can say about it is that, totally in isolation, it may not be a very [I]strong[/I] claim. But a valid claim is still valid even if it happens to be weak. [/QUOTE]

Verification