JonathanB00K3R, it is fallacious because the pigs could be flying for some other reason. It doesn't say that the only way for pigs to fly is for you to be correct - just that if you were correct, then the pigs would fly.

lol, yes. It is no longer on Amazon, but you can get it by subscribing to lucidphilosophy.com . Or just send me an email and I can send you an attachment. It's an e document, not a physical book. Best, Paul

teachphilosophy I love it! Ok I will email you and check the website. Thankyou and look forward to acquiring your content!

Are the words in quotes necessary or placeholders?

@@lanzibangli1259 they are necessary. Its my adaptation of an argument I heard put into a form.

+0cards0 Thanks, and .... ahhhh, you bring up a deep philosophical and scientific issue. Philosophers are in different camps on this one. For example, David Chalmers believes it is the composition fallacy... we can't just assume all is physical... and one may be measuring the correlate of consciousness but not consciousness itself. Daniel Dennett is closer to your position and doesn't believe there is anything mysterious about consciousness when we take a physicalist approach. I get your point about physical being able to measure the effects of something... McGinn takes this approach on consciousness and believes it must be physical even if we don't know how. So, I'll just say there is disagreement among intelligent people about whether that is the composition fallacy. :)

+0cards0 To build on the last comment... or I can ask this, "Can we infer it is physical simply from the fact that it's parts are physical?" Or do we need extra info?

+teachphilosophy intresting thanks "Can we infer it is physical simply from the fact that it's parts are physical?" i think since there are no evidence of anything non physical in the universe then we have no valid reason to think that something is non physical, i mean if its non measurable then for us its not existent, we can experience consciousness so its already measurable, we can detect it, so its already physical, i think a claim that says consciousness might be the product of something non physical would carry the burden of proof, & until it wont be proven then we have no good resons to think that, even if consciousness is the product of something non physical that we can never measure then how its different from something that dont exist for us? so i think to believe in the possibility of something we cant measure is the same as to believe in god, so unless we see something non physical then this word is pointless, & if we do see something non physical then it will become physical, so as lawrence krauss said, "i dont even know what non physical means" ;)

+0cards0 Hi Ocards, let's assume materialism is true, obviously true. I still don't see how it follows that any proposition supports it. For example, let's say it is obviously true that "2+2=4" . It would still be fallacious of me to argue "firetrucks make noises, so 2+2=4." Or let's say it's obvious that water is h2O. It would still be fallacious to argue that water is H2O because and only because electrons can be measured, or clowns are funny. In short, even if you believe x is obvious, it doesn't follow that any proposition supports x. What do you think? All propositions can be deduced from a contradiction, but not a tautology or an assumption. As for materialism, that is an interesting discussion... have you seen this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/obKnnKWYmdmnkXk.html in which Kant uses a transcendental or epistemological critique to show materialism is not as obvious as it seems (including modern forms of materialism)?

+teachphilosophy i think i see what you're saying, you say that even if we assume that materialism is true, & if we agree that non physical means non existent, then consciousness wont be physical because it is the product of something physical, it will be physical because it exists & is measurable, if this is what you mean then i agree with you, BUT ;), if we agree that non physical means non existent then dont you think that if all the information we have about something is that it is the product of something physical, then wouldnt it be sufficient for us to conclude from that that it is physical? if its the product of anything physical then it would necessarily mean that it has to exists, & if it exists then it is physical, so i think we can cunclude that something is physical if we know it exists, so it wont really be a non sequitur if we agree that non physical means non existent i think & about the video, it sounds like the brain in the vat argument, as matt dillahunty said about the brain in the vat , ye we cant know if reality is real & that our experience of reality is accurate, so its not about absolute certainty its about maximal certainty, but since i dont have a way to calculate the posibility of a claim then i dont accept either possibilities, so i think to consider non physical we first need good reason for it, & we have non

the form itself is fallacious because if you use a different quality other than colour eg shape then the argument no longer works

*can be fallacious (it's an informal fallacy)

P1: The arguer was probably smoking when making the argument C: Therefore, the argument is fallacious The above argument is indeed fallacious but the presenter did not argue that the strange creature argument is fallacious because the arguer was probably smoking. The presenter provided evidence for why the argument is fallacious by pointing out the formal fallacy that was committed. So, the presenter didn't commit either Ad Hominem or Genetic Fallacy.