Talk:Secundum quid

If you can believe it, "All men are mortal" may actually be an extremely likely general rule of thumb and not a categorical proposition that is universally true. This may change the usage of the example "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." Also, it depends upon what you mean by "mortal" qua physical mortality.

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Plagerized from here: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Dicto_simpliciter

That is a Wikipedia mirror site. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 17:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deductive or inductive?[edit]

Dicto simpliciter is listed as a "deductive fallacy" on this page, and on many others. However, on the inductive reasoning article, dicto simpliciter is listed as a type of fallacy that can occur in a certain form of inductive reasoning (statistical syllogisms), and the fact that it seems very similar to the faulty generalizations (a.k.a. inductive fallacies) also makes me wonder (or at least makes me confused). -Silence 09:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer patient/Recreational drug user[edit]

The example seems faulty, since one arrests a cancer patient because he violates a law and not because he uses a drug for recreational purposes. Thus stated, it seems to beg the question...

--Sophroniscus 18:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's inappropriate and potentially confusing for an encyclopedia to use a normative statement ("the appropriateness of using opiates is dependent on the presence of extreme pain") as an example, taking it as a matter of fact. As illustrated above, there are people who don't share this belief for whom such an example will be confusing (and perhaps offensive). Can anyone come up with an example that doesn't make assumptions about the reader's system of ethics? - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 17:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This bothered me too, and looking at the talk page I see it's been a problem for four years! I put in a less politically controversial example. Hapax (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a[edit]

Despite the fact that the introduction states "The a (meaning "from") is often omitted when this phrase is used in English, being mistaken for an indefinite article" this mistake is then continuously made throughout the rest of the article, and even in the title of the article itself.

I will clean this up if no-one objects (or if no-one beats me to it).

Moon Oracle 16:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I did it. Moon Oracle 11:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading water-boiling example[edit]

The example is not fallacious, and therefore does not illustrate secundum quid. It is incomplete. because it does not expand on "qualifies the truth of our general principle": it leaves the intelligent reader to supply "since the boiling point of water is less at lower pressure". I'll add a better eaxample: someone else can delete this one if they like. Franskraler (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]