Fascinating article about philosophy, logic and psychology. Consider the following: All psychological scientists conduct or conducted empirical research. William James conducted empirical research. Therefore, William James was a psychological scientist. All of the statements above are true. William James was indeed a psychological scientist. But the statement is not logical. It’s not a logical proof. It’s not a valid argument. You haven’t proved your case with your hypothesis or argument. Sure, James was a psychologist, but the fact that he did empirical work is not what proves he’s a psychologist. Lots of other folks did empirical work too. Einstein did, and he wasn’t a psychologist. He was a physicist.
Not all the statement above were true. The premises were true, not the conclusion.
Sorry but you really didn’t argue in this article what is says in the title. You gave an example of bad logic and an untrue conclusion.
That’s not correct. The conclusion is true. William James was a psychological scientist. That’s a true statement.
SORRY my bad
so shouldn’t the title be: what is illiogical is not always untrue?
Not all who halucinate are delusional.
Maybe…
It’s not a logical argument.
In order for an argument to be discernible we have to make sure our terminology “rhymes,” don’t we?
A red flag shot outta my ass the minute is saw the phrase “psychological scientist.” That’s a misnomer that will disqualify the rest of your argument.
Affirming the consequent.
You claim this article is about “what’s logical is not always true”, but what you really show is that what is true is not always logical(ly valid). If you’d ever taken a course on or read a book about, you’d know why those are different. Hint: material implication is not commutative.