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.
Recommend clarification or link on "implies"
There is often argument about the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" due to the difference between formal (logical) and colloquial use of the term "imply", as discussed at Correlation does not imply causation#Usage.
Would it be appropriate to provide that information via link, footnote or parenthetical comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrjank (talk • contribs) 2016-12-12T19:31:48 (UTC)
No, because this is not about a fallacy, but about ambiguity. If someone intentionally exploited the ambiguity, that would constitute equivocation, which is already in the list.
Please don't forget to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this by typing four tildes~~~~ at the end of your post. If you have questions, please feel free to ask. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, I do not see any use of "imply" or "implies" that is unclear in the article. The phrase 'correlation does not imply causation' is not used in this article. There is "Correlation proves causation" (linked to Post hoc ergo propter hoc) and "Association fallacy". If we did have that statement, rather then explaining it here, it would be clarified with examples in the linked article about the specific fallacy. If the person doesn't get it from examples, then the person is never going to get it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
ok, 'imply' is only used in explanation of the earlier "Correlation proves causation" section, not the later "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" section. The former uses imply in the formal sense, whereas the often confused informal or colloquial usage would make that statement appear incorrect (correlation seems to suggest possible causation).Nrjank (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't think so. It's an invalid argument but it could still be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
If you read the rest of the sentence, you'll see that valid arguments can be still be fallacious by dint of being unsound. That is, the argument from premises to conclusion is valid, but the premises fail to be true. This applies to informal fallacies only, of course. Paradoctor (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Please, do not remove the second instance of the noun fallacy in the entry Naturalistic fallacy fallacy. There is a difference between naturalistic fallacy and naturalistic fallacy fallacy. The former is an invalid inference of ought from is, while the latter is a meta-logical fallacy that has a capacity to falsely declare some valid inferences instances of the former.
Logicallyfallacious.com is not a reliable source
It's a page about a self-published book. Please put in only reliable third party mentions of fallacies.--Edittrack121 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)