Irrefutable Logic
Many people are aware of how spam is my favorite food — to make fun of. It just about tops my list of things that should not exist.
Therefore, 10 points to any who can point out the flaw in this irrefutable logic:
- Nothing is better than a big juicy steak.
- Spam is better than nothing.
- Therefore, spam is better than a big juicy steak.
Comments
13 Responses to “Irrefutable Logic”
Leave a Reply
About Matt Perman
Follower of Christ. Husband of one, father of three. Former director of strategy at Desiring God. This blog exists to help equip Christians in good works, because that's what productivity is really about.
Learn more Contact me Speaking Availability Friend me on Facebook Follow me on Twitter Like What's Best Next on Facebook
Keep Updated
Subscribe by email-
Map
nodirectory
There’s more than one fallacy here, but I guess the one you’re looking for is that spam is better than nothing. Given what you’ve said I doubt you believe that’s true!
equivocation: nothing ?
Agreed – you’re equivocating on “nothing” in your two premises.
Agreed— Equivocation of “nothing” is one problem. Also you make two assumptions, and the one about Spam being better than nothing is false.
The word “nothing” can have 2 senses. The first is how you mean to use it in the first two statements: “there isn’t anything.” To rephrase,
1. There isn’t anything better than a big juicy steak.
2. Spam isn’t better than anything.
In order to compose these statements into your third statement, you misread the word “nothing” to mean “having nothing”.
1. Having nothing is better than having a big juicy steak.
2. Having spam is better than having nothing.
You could then compose those to say, “Having spam is better than having nothing, which is better than having a big juicy steak.” Which could then reduce to what you actually said.
I agree, equivocation of the term “nothing.”
Also, it’s interesting that this post links to related post, “10 Productivity Tips for Building Relationships.” I don’t see the connection between it and spam.
Going out on a limb to say:
“nothing is better” is not a invalid/false proposition.
nothing != better
You are actually affirming the opposite:
- “nothing” = “everything”
- “is” = “is not”
“everything is not better” is a valid proposition.
Which leaves us with:
1. Everything is not better than juicy steak.
2. Spam is not better than everything.
3. Spam is not better than juicy steak.
Feedback?
Sorry — that should read:
“nothing is better” is not a valid proposition.
What’s wrong with Spam?????
-Aggrieved of East Longbottom.
10 points to everyone — you’ve passed with flying colors.
Except for Gordon, of course — negative 10 to you, Gordon, for saying something good about spam!
Here’s a mind-bender for you all:
A cowboy rode into town on Tuesday. Two days later, he left the town. He left town on Tuesday, too. Explain.
Tuesday was his horse’s name.
Josh wins!