J
JReducation
Guest
I’ll just add my two cents to your own. His Excellency’s logic is flawed. I understand where he is trying to go with this, but it does not work. He beings with an a priori assumption that people cannot refrain from sexual activity.I actually see what Neil Anthony is saying (initially) and agree with him. We do not need to exaggerate a person’s position to better demonize him. I do not know if the statements were taken out of context, since neither the articlce or Neil has provided any context, but if it was, then it is unnecessary and inappropriate.
The Bishop’s position is scandalous enough without any embelishment.
When your parting premise is incorrect and all of your other premises are incorrect, your conclusion is logical. However, a logical conclusion is not a true conclusion.
We often get confused by this little trick in philosophical logic. Philosophy admits that there can be a valid logical conclusion if you follow this simple paradigm.
Premise 1 = false
Premise 2 = false
Conclusion = therefore false
Two false leading to a false conclusion is logical. But it is still false.
The bishop’s paradigm
- Condoms prevent AIDS = false
- People cannot avoid sex = false
- Therefore, people must be allowed condoms = logical conclusion, but false
Br. JR, OSF