2 ms·
This statement is a clear and obvious logical fallacy, and should have appeared as such to contemporary audiences. He is saying that Animals have (limbs => they
by necubi 16y ago
This statement is a clear and obvious logical fallacy, and should have appeared as such to contemporary audiences. He is saying that Animals have (limbs => they move) => (the Earth does not have limbs => it does not move). But the latter is the inverse of the former, which must be proven separately and which is not implied by the conditional.
- davnola 16y agoAs I commented below, I expect the translation "move" makes it sound worse than it did in the original. If he means "are self-propelled" or "are mobile", it's slight less wrong.
- apl 16y agoThat's correct. Nonetheless, we can certainly grant him an implicit "Only living things (animals) can move (by themselves)." Doesn't make it any less wrong, but I doubt that it's just a logical fallacy.