Here’s a logical fallacy I’ve been coming across (and making) lately.
“Non semper, ergo numquam” means “Not always, therefore never”.
In response to pointing out some cause of an event, or a criticism of an idea, a person finds a counter example. That can’t be true because of a particular example when it is not true.
It is a kind of quantification fallacy, a false conversion, but from my research I could not find a name for it.
It is a fallacy because most of the time we make general statements not with the purpose of suggesting they apply in all cases, just that they are general enough to remark on. To undermine such a general statement it is not enough to respond with a counter-example.
So “natural selection drives evolution”… “here’s a situation where natural selection doesn’t drive evolution.”
Or “religion promotes supernatural nonsense”… “I’m religious and I don’t…
View original post 265 more words