Fallacies of Complex Questions

xerosaburu · Post by **xerosaburu** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:30 am

They seem to invade like a stealthy virus.

For example asking the question:

"Why?"

Is itself a complex question.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:55 am

No, by itself it's completely stupid. It has to have context, and then the contect will show if it has meaning or not..

xerosaburu · Post by **xerosaburu** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:59 am

Actually it is.

It presumes that the answer to this question is "Yes".

"Does every effect have an antecedent cause?"

Perhaps it's a necessary and inevitable presumption, but it is still a presumption.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:30 am

Well now you have given it a context, and here it is deduction, not presumption.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:07 am

"When p<->q, does every q have an antecedent p?"

xerosaburu · Post by **xerosaburu** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:22 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Well now you have given it a context, and here it is deduction, not presumption.

All arguments are only artificially deductive as all is inductive.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:30 am

xerosaburu wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Well now you have given it a context, and here it is deduction, not presumption.
All arguments are only artificially deductive as all is inductive.

Inductive reasoning is for the future, and deductive reasoning is for past events. If you are postulating that there is no past, then induction would be all presumption, as you said; but how can the past be any less real than the future? I say it can't.

xerosaburu · Post by **xerosaburu** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:52 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
xerosaburu wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Well now you have given it a context, and here it is deduction, not presumption.
All arguments are only artificially deductive as all is inductive.
Inductive reasoning is for the future, and deductive reasoning is for past events. If you are postulating that there is no past, then induction would be all presumption, as you said; but how can the past be any less real than the future? I say it can't.

You say one is for the past and one the future without argument.