Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Creative Speculation

William Seger

(11,031 posts)

14. Read the article

Reply to . . (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:13 PM

Sep 2012

It explains why this type of argument is invalid:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.

Your argument is:

1. If Rumsfeld were guilty of being part of an "inside job," he'd do these things.
2. Rumsfeld did those things.
3. Therefore, Rumsfeld is guilty of being part of an "inside job.".

If you don't understand why that logic is not valid, I don't think I can help. Since the logic is faulty, there's no need to discuss whether or not your dubious premises are really true: The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The best evidence against a 9/11 conspiracy? [View all] MercutioATC Sep 2012 OP

Maybe some Politicalboi Sep 2012 #1

Your question has a built-in premise that the Pentagon had defenses. Can you Flatulo Sep 2012 #7

What happened to all the gold?? Angry Dragon Sep 2012 #2

Duh. zappaman Sep 2012 #3

Short answer? Shagman Sep 2012 #4

Part of the problem towards a truth is dixiegrrrrl Sep 2012 #5

The issue is pretty simple, really Ace Acme Oct 2013 #39

That is evidence only that the powers that be have controlled information well enough . . . freedom fighter jh Sep 2012 #6

Clear to whom? William Seger Sep 2012 #8

A main problem of the "truth movement" is that it's.... Frank_Norris_Lives Sep 2012 #9

It would seem that the reason you can't accept the "official story" William Seger Sep 2012 #10

William Seger - Please come to the Window of Exposure thread . . Sep 2012 #11

Here will do William Seger Sep 2012 #12

So you're unwilling to enter "Window of Exposure"... . . Sep 2012 #13

Read the article William Seger Sep 2012 #14

Proof in a criminal case is not the same thing as proof in Mathematics. eomer Sep 2012 #15

There's only one standard for what constitutes a "valid" logical inference William Seger Sep 2012 #17

quote: "and it isn't necessary to put a name to the fallacy involved" . . Sep 2012 #21

Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #22

I did William Seger Sep 2012 #36

But, of course, a valid logical inference is not the standard in a criminal case. eomer Sep 2012 #23

I think you've managed to convince... . . Sep 2012 #27

Say WHAT?!? What country do you live in? William Seger Sep 2012 #34

Less snarky response William Seger Sep 2012 #38

This person is a runner . . Sep 2012 #20

So... . . Sep 2012 #16

I'm "suggesting" exactly what I said William Seger Sep 2012 #18

Please help me understand . . Sep 2012 #19

Are you saying that you still don't understand William Seger Sep 2012 #35

But anyway, here's the dubious premise behind your faulty logic William Seger Sep 2012 #37

Reality Check (please read) . . Sep 2012 #24

I'm an air traffic controller of 21 years MercutioATC Sep 2012 #25

You are wrong. . . Sep 2012 #26

Actually, I have a lot more insight into the issue than you. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #28

MercutioATC, you said: "I know that it's fun to believe in faceless entities that control things... . . Sep 2012 #29

Funny how... . . Sep 2012 #30

I wasn't referring to any thread. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #31

If you had even glanced at the thread in question, . . Sep 2012 #32

I've replied in the thread that you requested I view. MercutioATC Sep 2012 #33

"The system was blinking red" but we were complacent Ace Acme Oct 2013 #40

Your asking for an explanation for incompetency? zappaman Oct 2013 #41

They seemed pretty competent to me. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #42