> in the new logic, you can’t soundly argue that “all dogs are mammals; all mammals have fur; therefore, all dogs have fur” because one person shaving their dog

> in the new logic, you can’t soundly argue that “all dogs are mammals; all mammals have fur; therefore, all dogs have fur” because one person shaving their dog suddenly makes “all mammals have fur” untrue. Isn't this just a problem with an unclear definition of "having fur"? Is the article saying that the old logic would hand-wave this problem away because it's about "universals and essences"?