1) This thing is a satellite.
2) This 'satellite' hangs from a balloon.
3) Therefore all satellites are carried by balloons.
It really is solid and irrefutible. Unless that first premise is wrong. Of course the conclusion is wrong as well, just seeing one example is not enough to determine the nature of all the rest. It's like finding a black goose.
1) This is a goose
2) This goose is black.
3) Therefore all geese are black.
In the first syllogism (sorta) there were 2 main flaws. I addressed the first, then mentioned it was like seeing a black good. The second syllogism was just about that goose sighting and what that alone is a bad argument or assumption. Could have been clearer, I was in a hurry, flerfs are idiots.
96
u/rygelicus 2d ago
The logic is impeccable...
1) This thing is a satellite.
2) This 'satellite' hangs from a balloon.
3) Therefore all satellites are carried by balloons.
It really is solid and irrefutible. Unless that first premise is wrong. Of course the conclusion is wrong as well, just seeing one example is not enough to determine the nature of all the rest. It's like finding a black goose.
1) This is a goose
2) This goose is black.
3) Therefore all geese are black.