{"id":3021,"date":"2023-09-11T01:13:39","date_gmt":"2023-09-10T22:13:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/?p=3021"},"modified":"2024-03-05T08:15:36","modified_gmt":"2024-03-05T06:15:36","slug":"non-sequitur-o-concluzie-fortata-nu-este-o-concluzie","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/2023\/09\/11\/non-sequitur-o-concluzie-fortata-nu-este-o-concluzie\/","title":{"rendered":"Non Sequitur. A forced conclusion is not a conclusion"},"content":{"rendered":"

The multitude and complexity of information that we need to \ufb01t in short intervals into\nthe right mental categories pave the way for the appearance of erroneous reasoning.\nWhen a conclusion is supported by very weak or even irrelevant arguments, the\nreasoning falls into the category called \"non sequitur\", i.e. \"does not follow \"11<\/a><\/sup>,or \"irrelevant argument\".<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Election campaigns often use non sequitur sophisms such as: \"Lying is harmful and\nimmoral, and liars (candidate Y) should not be put in positions of state leadership, so\nvote for X.\"<\/em> The conclusion is not logical, because the steps in the argument are\nmissing, and those present are not relevant to the conclusion. The \ufb01rst statement is\ncorrect, the second is correct, but both are irrelevant to the conclusion. The logical\nconclusion of the \ufb01rst two statements would be: don't vote for liars. The missing\nsteps in the logical fallacy argument - induced, but unproven - are: Y is a liar, the only\nhonest candidate is X.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Types of non sequitur <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"All people who have received Christian baptism will be saved. I am baptized,\ntherefore I will be saved.\"<\/em> Often the lack of argument for the conclusion means that it\ndoes not follow from a general premise, even if it is true. In this case, the premise is\nnot true, but the conclusion may be true. This depends on the missing intermediate\narguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Believers go to church. George doesn't go to church, so he's not a believer.\"<\/em> The\ndenial of the antecedent does not necessarily result in the conclusion of the\nargument. To show that George is not a believer requires a series of probative\narguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Because X is right, Y is wrong,\"<\/em>, \"If it is love, God does not punish.\"<\/em> The conclusion\ndoes not follow from the premise, and the error is constructed by proposing a false\ndisjunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When and why non sequitur is used<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Non sequitur errors occur most often due to a lack of critical thinking or sometimes\nattention. Other times, such sophisms are intentionally and biasedly constructed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When it occurs unintentionally, a fallacy is usually the result of confusion or an\nautomatism of the brain, which seeks to defend previously held beliefs. Our\nperception may change, our selection of new information becomes biased, the\nrigours of critical analysis may decrease, and so on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

When a lack of arguments is coupled with a desire to impose an idea, people resort\nto argumentative tricks that start from true facts or ideas, which they then link\nthrough faulty inductions to conclusions that seem correct. For this form of\nmanipulation to be successful, it only requires that the interlocutors are uninformed\nor inattentive and naive.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Differences between non sequiturs and other sophistry <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The \"red herring\" sophism, or irrelevant argument, is used with the aim of changing\nthe subject of the discussion. This logical fallacy is similar to the non sequitur. Both\nare built on arguments that are irrelevant to the construction of the conclusion,\nexcept that the distracting reasoning changes the direction of the argument, whereas\nnon sequitur continues, albeit irrelevantly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here's an example that differentiates the irrelevant argument from the non sequitur:\n\"In the debate over intelligent design and evolutionary theory, religion is the red\nherring. An argument such as \"Religion is concerned with \ufb01nding meaning and\nsigni\ufb01cance in life, so the intelligent plan cannot be accepted\" moves the subject\nfrom the need to evaluate by comparison the intelligent plan theory and the theory of\nevolution to an irrelevant discussion of the domain of knowledge circumscribed by\nreligion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In contrast, an argument such as \"Religion is concerned with man's relationship to\nGod, so it has nothing to say about the origin of life\" is a non sequitur argument. It\ndoes not follow from the fact that religion is concerned with man's relationship with\nGod that it has nothing to say about the origin of life.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The difference between non sequitur sophism and post hoc (false cause) sophism is\na sensible one. Both one and the other reach conclusions that do not follow from\ntheir premises, only that the error of post hoc argumentation is built on a false\ncausation. If an event X is followed by another event Y, it follows that Y is caused by\nX. The non sequitur error occurs rather because of a lack of logic and relevance in\nthe relationship between argument and conclusion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is an example: \"M has changed his Orthodox religion to Catholicism. The day\nafter he had a car accident. The accident happened because he renounced his right\nfaith.\" <\/em>In this case, the conclusion does not follow from the premise, but the fact that\nwe have no argument that the accident was caused by the change of religion puts\nthe example in the category of post hoc sophistry, not non sequitur sophistry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Orice sofism formal are un non sequitur \u00een concluzie. Chiar dac\u0103 uneori este mai greu sesizabil, toate erorile de g\u00e2ndire se \u00eenscriu \u00een ceea ce \u00eenseamn\u0103 argumentul \u201enu decurge\u201d: motivul pentru care nu decurge \u00eencadreaz\u0103 ra\u0163ionamentul respectiv \u00eentr-o categorie sau alta.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u00cen articolul, \u201eCum se construiesc argumentele valide\u201d<\/em>, autorul Lauren\u0163iu Mo\u0163 arat\u0103 c\u0103, pentru a fi valide, argumentele trebuie s\u0103 \u00eendeplineasc\u0103 mai multe condi\u0163ii: Prima ar fi ca premisele s\u0103 fie valide. Apoi, ipoteza argumentului trebuie s\u0103 fie demonstrabil\u0103 pe baz\u0103 de motive \u0219i de dovezi. \u00cen final, concluzia trebuie s\u0103 derive din argumenta\u0163ie \u0219i s\u0103 transforme ipoteza \u00eentr-o tez\u0103. \u201eOrice afirma\u0163ie pleac\u0103 de la o premis\u0103, din care rezult\u0103 o ipotez\u0103. Aceast\u0103 ipotez\u0103 urmeaz\u0103 s\u0103 fie testat\u0103, iar rezultatele se v\u0103d \u00eentr-o aser\u0163iune general\u0103. La r\u00e2ndul ei, aceasta din urm\u0103 are \u00een spate ni\u0219te motive. Iar acele motive sunt sus\u0163inute de ni\u0219te dovezi.2<\/a><\/sup>\u201d Premisa duce la ipotez\u0103, ipotez\u0103 \u2013 la motive, motivele \u2013 la dovezi, iar dovezile \u2013 la concluzie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Non sequitur \u0219i arta umorului<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Uneori, argumentul non sequitur este folosit pentru a schimba abrupt subiectul \u0219i pentru a da conversa\u0163iei o tent\u0103 umoristic\u0103. Este chiar o figur\u0103 de stil folosit\u0103 \u00een teatrul absurdului, adesea comic\u0103. Trecerea de la un non sequitur la altul poate crea efectul comic. Imposibilitatea audien\u0163ei de a intui \u0219irul afirma\u0163iilor dintr-un spectacol \u0219i absurditatea lor adesea conduce la r\u00e2sete. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Umorul de tip non sequitur func\u0163ioneaz\u0103 pe baza mecanismelor suprarealiste de combinare a elementelor aparent incongruente \u0219i disparate cu scopul de a deruta \u0219i de a surprinde. Acest efect ilogic func\u0163ioneaz\u0103 eliber\u00e2nd publicul de sub domina\u0163ia ra\u0163ionalismului \u0219i astfel, prin schimb\u0103rile de imagini, personaje \u0219i st\u0103ri de fapt, sala deseori izbucne\u0219te \u00een r\u00e2s3<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n

NOTES<\/p>\n\n

  1. \u201e Richard Nordquist, \u00abNon Sequitur (Fallacy)\u00bb, ThoughtCo., 5 nov. 2019, https:\/\/www.thoughtco.com\/what-is-a-non-sequitur-1691437<\/a> \u201d \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  2. \u201eLauren\u0163iu Mo\u0163, \u00abCum se construiesc argumentele valide\u00bb, \u00een Semnele Timpului, februarie 2020.\u201d \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  3. \u201eCristina Modreanu, \u00abFinal de stagiune \u00e0 la Dabija\u00bb, \u00een ArtAct magazine, nr. 125, 6 iulie 2011.\u201d \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li><\/ol>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Multitudinea \u0219i complexitatea informa\u0163iilor pe care avem nevoie s\u0103 le \u00eencadr\u0103m \u00een intervale scurte de timp \u00een categoriile mintale potrivite preg\u0103tesc terenul pentru apari\u0163ia ra\u0163ionamentelor eronate. C\u00e2nd o concluzie este sus\u0163inut\u0103 de argumente foarte slabe sau chiar irelevante, ra\u0163ionamentul este \u00eencadrat \u00een categoria numit\u0103 „non sequitur”, adic\u0103 \u201enu decurge\u201d, sau \u201eargumentul irelevant\u201d. Campaniile electorale folosesc […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":8910,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"[{\"content\":\"\u201e Richard Nordquist, \u00abNon Sequitur (Fallacy)\u00bb, ThoughtCo., 5 nov. 2019, https:\/\/www.thoughtco.com\/what-is-a-non-sequitur-1691437<\/a> \u201d\",\"id\":\"7a2d6c48-f4c9-40cf-bebe-03b80364aac3\"},{\"content\":\"\u201eLauren\u0163iu Mo\u0163, \u00abCum se construiesc argumentele valide\u00bb, \u00een Semnele Timpului, februarie 2020.\u201d\",\"id\":\"bd5ac661-ada2-4827-8b70-7ba14dc3634a\"},{\"content\":\"\u201eCristina Modreanu, \u00abFinal de stagiune \u00e0 la Dabija\u00bb, \u00een ArtAct magazine, nr. 125, 6 iulie 2011.\u201d\",\"id\":\"e1d42124-cda4-4971-9b0c-211334ad1a5e\"}]"},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[40],"class_list":["post-3021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articole"],"authors":[{"term_id":40,"user_id":2,"is_guest":0,"slug":"stefanita","display_name":"Stefanita Poenariu","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/echipa-poenariu-stefanita.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/echipa-poenariu-stefanita.jpg"},"0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3021","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3021"}],"version-history":[{"count":39,"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3021\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9917,"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3021\/revisions\/9917"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8910"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3021"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tischool.ro\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}