by graphitepen » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:01 am
mathnerdjames wrote:The kids argument is a logical fallacy. The father says A implies B. The kid responds so not A implies not B, saying that if we study history we immediately will be not doomed to repeat it, which is a logical fallacy. The father's statement was an implication one way, the lack of studying history will imply that you will be doomed to repeat it, but it is not necessary for one who studies history to be not doomed to repeat it. Therefore, the child's argument is false and the truism holds against the argument.
I agree with this analysis of the logical fallacy but as I don't think it counteracts the conclusion he came to. He seems to make quite a leap and therefore, while his argument may be false, his conclusion could still hold merit (but it doesn't).
Also, after reassessing my position, I now think this is a very poignant satire on personal, corporate and governmental responsibility.
You see this argument made implicitly every day - "Prevention isn't worth doing until what you'd want to prevent happens".
Decisions based on such reasoning usually end up costing much more than original speculation and estimates.
[quote="mathnerdjames"]The kids argument is a logical fallacy. The father says A implies B. The kid responds so not A implies not B, saying that if we study history we immediately will be not doomed to repeat it, which is a logical fallacy. The father's statement was an implication one way, the lack of studying history will imply that you will be doomed to repeat it, but it is not necessary for one who studies history to be not doomed to repeat it. Therefore, the child's argument is false and the truism holds against the argument.[/quote]
I agree with this analysis of the logical fallacy but as I don't think it counteracts the conclusion he came to. He seems to make quite a leap and therefore, while his argument may be false, his conclusion could still hold merit (but it doesn't).
Also, after reassessing my position, I now think this is a very poignant satire on personal, corporate and governmental responsibility.
You see this argument made implicitly every day - "Prevention isn't worth doing until what you'd want to prevent happens".
Decisions based on such reasoning usually end up costing much more than original speculation and estimates.