Does this count as a logical fallacy?

Post Reply New Topic

It is what it is not.

After I get some answers I will tell you why I asked. If I tell you why first I am afraid it might bias the results. Thanks.

For strict literalism - false. If you want to give some sway to interpretation then you have concepts related to something vs. concepts related to a presence of 'less' of something. In the later case saying that a deficiency based definition is defined by what it isn't - that's partially correct at least.

I'm sure that exceptions and "trick question" or otherwise unobvious answers
exist.
For example, is the TRI_STATE of computer logic TRUE OR FALSE?
For practical purposes I define:
(TRI_STATE=NOT(TRI_STATE)) = TRUE
(TRI_STATE=TRI_STATE)=TRUE
(TRI_STATE=FALSE)=FALSE
(TRI_STATE=TRUE)=FALSE
It is possible to use tri-state to process trinary data in boolean logic circuits.
It has many unexpected uses but an expected example would be encountered
while forcing access to RAM that you have not yet installed.

IT IS WHAT IT ISN'T
NOTHING IS NO THING
IS THERE ANYTHING CALLED NOTHING?

IF SPACE IS A VACUUM, AND VACUUM IS A THING,
IS THERE NOTHING OUTSIDE OF THE UNIVERSE?
IS THERE ALSO SPACE AND VACUUM OUTSIDE OF THE UNIVERSE
OR SOMETHING ELSE CALLED NOTHING?

In THE NEVERENDING STORY,
lack of imagination almost causes Fantasyland
to be consumed not by the vacuum of empty space,
but by pure absolute NOTHING.

It is either a statement opposing the law of noncontradiction, or there is something in the context of what was said allows this to make sense.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0[/youtube]

I would think that the fallacy would be a deficient premise...me not know logic...logic is tweeting bird, and flowers that smell bad...

It can't be a fallacy, since there is no argument. It's just a false statement, ie P ^ ¬P.

Well, except when I say stuff like this, which I do all the time!

@ Vince... IT depends on what the definition of "IT" is.

If time exists, IT isn't what IT WAS.

Due to the nature of human vision,
IT isn't (EVER) what IT looks like.

If IT is on a map, IT is not a real place.
(An arrow that says "YOU ARE HERE" is always FALSE.)
Kilroy Wuz Everywhere, but now he ain't.

IT ISN'T WHAT IT IS ... not a Fallacy but maybe a Tautology.
Fallacy requires an obvious context and a logical error in judgment.
Gambler's fallacy:
My lucky numbers haven't come up in a while, so now is the best time to bet.
Tautology:
This sentence is false.

Nothing can both be and not be in the same regard at the same time. It is the classical law of non-contradiction.

ruveyn

"Sometimes hipness is what it 'aint"
-Tower of Power from the song "What Is Hip?"

The concept of "hip" and "cool" (or whatever the current word is, my slang is very out of date but the concept remains the same) is an example of something that is what it is not.

???

Thanks. That is what I was hoping to hear. The reason why I asked is because a lot of common paradoxes are specializations of that statement, including the liar paradox, the god paradox, and Russel's paradox.

Liar paradox:
This is what it is not
This is true
This is a lie

God paradox:
This is what it is not
This can do what it can't do
God can do what it can't do
Can god create a boulder that it can't lift

Russel's paradox:
This is what it is not
This is everything that contains itself
R is everything that contains itself
R is what it isn't because R is both containing and not containing itself

Russel's paradox is a bit difficult for me to explain, but I'm pretty sure you get the point. I just thought it was interesting and worth sharing that the cool paradoxes are based off a false statement. Unless of course the first statement is a paradox, and the paradoxes are the context. I'm not too sure what to think. If the first statement is false, the so are the others, but if it's just another paradox, then it has no real effect. Any thoughts?

I believe this is a valid counter-example to the notion that we necessarily have a logical error in the statement. Language isn't analytical and sometimes instead of clear statements, we have statements that are more indirect. It is true that "Hipness is what it ain't", and while we can restate this perhaps in logical terms, that basic statement can be interpreted to find the meaning of it.

God can create a bolder so heavy that even he can't lift it. And, God can also lift it. That is how awesome God is!

In short God is a logical contradiction, which is proof of His non-existence. Nothing that exists contradicts the law of non-contradiction.

ruveyn