An Illicit Process: Satire Und Theology Version

An Illicit Process

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Preface

This review was originally published 20170501, revised 20250430 for Blogger and an entry on academia.edu.

Illicit Process

Pirie documents that this fallacy uses unsupported claims, unsupported premises. (131). A reasonable conclusion cannot be drawn in regard to a whole class, without some knowledge about what applies to all in this class. (131).

For example:

To state as conclusion that all Christians are fundamentalists without reasonably demonstrating this in a premise or premises, is fallacious.

Pirie cited:

'Some Australians are pleasant fellows, and some con-men are not pleasant fellows, so some Australians are not conmen.' (132).

Pirie writes that this might be true, but cannot be proven by this argument. (132).

As a premise it might be true that some Australians are pleasant fellows.

As a premise it might be true that some con-men are not pleasant fellows.

There is not enough significant evidence and significant reason to demonstrate that some Australians are not con-men as conclusion. It may be asserted and assumed on 'the street', but is not an academic factual argument.

Fallacy files

Referenced from Fallacy Files See also: Irving Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic (Tenth Edition) (Prentice Hall, 1998), pp. 276-7.

'Any form of categorical syllogism in which a term that is distributed in the conclusion is undistributed in a premiss.' (premise, my correction).

Merriam-Webster 

Cited

'illicit process noun : a fallacy of distribution in which a term is distributed in a conclusion that has not been distributed in the premises' 

(End citation)

Note therefore a valid deductive argument can have: False premises and a true conclusion (FT) False premises and a false conclusion (FF) True premises and a true conclusion (TT) However... True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid. 

---

Thomism.org 

Cited 

'Definition: The Illicit Process fallacy is committed when a term in a syllogism is distributed in the conclusion but not distributed in a premise.'

(End citation)

Within logic, distribution is defined as to whether a term in a proposition is applied to all members of its class or only to some members.

'Illicit Major 

Definition: The Illicit Major fallacy is committed when the major term in a syllogism (the term that appears as the predicate of the conclusion and in one of the premises) is distributed in the conclusion but not in its premise.' 

'Examples: Some machines are not old. Some microwaves are old. Therefore, some microwaves are not machines.' 

Meta AI explains this more clearly:

Cited

'In the first example: Some machines are not old. Some microwaves are old. Therefore, some microwaves are not machines. The term "machines" is the predicate of the conclusion (some microwaves are not machines) and also appears in the first premise. So, "machines" is the major term. The issue is that "machines" is distributed in the conclusion (as it's negated universally for some microwaves in relation to all machines) but not in the premise (where it's only mentioned that some machines are not old, not all). This illustrates the Illicit Major fallacy.'

(End citation)

Machines is not distributed in the premise as all are not old. Some are old, some are not.

'Illicit Minor 

Definition: The Illicit Minor fallacy is committed when the minor term in a syllogism (the term that appears as the subject of the conclusion and in one of the premises) is distributed in the conclusion but not in its premise.' 

'Examples: All skyscrapers are tall. Some buildings are skyscrapers. Therefore, all buildings are tall.'

Meta AI explains this more clearly:

Cited

'In the second example: All skyscrapers are tall. Some buildings are skyscrapers. Therefore, all buildings are tall. The term "tall" is the predicate of the conclusion (all buildings are tall) and also appears in the first premise. However, for the Illicit Minor example, we're looking at the minor term, which is the subject of the conclusion and appears in one of the premises. In this case, the minor term is "buildings," which appears in the conclusion and the second premise. The issue is that "buildings" is distributed in the conclusion (all buildings are tall) but not in the premise (some buildings are skyscrapers), illustrating the Illicit Minor fallacy.' 

(End citation)

Not all buildings are tall. Not all buildings are skyscrapers. Not distributed in the premise.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy). 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.