Talk:Denying the correlative

Is 3 really an example of this fallacy? It seems that it is a perfectly valid (although unusual) viewpoint, and arguments about definitions are usually separate to incorrect logic. LordK 19:49, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Yes. The author is trying to persuade the reader by calling the parties "priest" and "cynic", inspiring us to believe that the "cynic" is actually out to prove that, according to accepted definitions of selfishness, i.e. "bad" selfishness, even mother Theresa was "badly" selfish. This fails to acknowledge the possibility that the cynic is actually trying to define selfishness with his statements, and that is not directly related to logic.
 * In fact, I've taken the liberty of rewriting the article with this proviso in mind. I'm no student of logic, though, so if anyone thinks this is irrelevant or badly worded and you can improve on it, do so. 82.92.119.11 20:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How does this fallacy relate to middle ground fallacy?--Ezadarque 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the one example given (at this time) needs more work. I don't understand how you can steal money that does not exist. 78.150.250.58 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

the word "or" is critical: either he stole it, or he didn't. If there was no money to steal then he didn't steal the money. there is nothing wrong with these statements.
 * You can't say he didn't steal the money if "the money" doesn't exist. It's not there to not steal.82.24.11.87 (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

there are actually two fallacies that this article is driving at.

1. false dilemma 2. fallacy of complex question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.29.209 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

etymology
I remember my mind was boggled when I first learned this one - after reading the definition but not the examples, I wondered why it wasn't 'affirming to correlative', or 'arguing from a false correlative' - it's because the correlative already exists, "it's either this or that," and you deny that correlative when you chime in, "or it's something else." So unless I've completely misunderstood this form, a true correlative (a non-fallacious dichotomy) must be introduced, with the fallacy occurring when that correlative is denied by the proposal of additional options.

Is my head the only one that didn't wrap very easily around the term at first? Would it be worth clarifying in the article? 98.246.6.1 (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong example
The mentioned example ("Policeman: ".. either you stole the money or you didn't, which is it?". Suspect: "... you are assuming that the money really exists....". In the context of the question this is not a valid alternative[1]: regardless of the existence of the money, the suspect either stole it or didn't.") is wrong: The "either ... or" implies exclusivity of "or" (as in: exactly one is true), but in fact, if the money does not exist, both are true (by ), making the "... you are assuming that the money really exists...." a valid point to make. --188.174.98.135 (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That too is vacuous... the problem was existential import but I've made it a counter example because a "suspect" (as opposed to a pupil) can almost always take the 5th (as we say in the US).—Machine Elf 1735  08:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Opposites?
In this fallacy, it is stated that Denying the Correlative is the opposite of "The false dilemma". When I look at "The false dilemma", it states that it is the opposite of "Argument to moderation".

If one thing is the direct opposite of another, then the other thing is the direct opposite of the first thing. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnurkel (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)