Talk:Modal scope fallacy

I would change this to "FALSE Necessity," as there are times when necessity is valid.JBDay 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. Dhvrm 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Example: Confusing?
I consider the example provided to be confusing to the average user, because it is based in a semantic understanding of the word "necessity" that is new or unusual to most persons. I propose an alternative example:

a) Bachelors are necessarily unmarried. b) John is a bachelor. c) John cannot marry.

In this case, the example still bears out a degree of necessity that is not the case, but is far more clear. Dhvrm 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Worth of example
There was an edit made to the article by 76.210.61.229 that looks like it belongs here:

"N.B. Actually this is a poor example. B does not follow from A (which gives no information about John), and, not knowing what was in the mind of the person who wrote this, must be assumed to be a given for the example to be valid. In the explanation, the writer proceeds to set up a straw man argument, another fallacy in which the arguer sets up a weak argument just to refute it. C does not in fact suggest that it is inconceivable for John to marry, merely that following from A and B he must be unmarried. (if P then Q, if Q then R, -> if P then R). Also, the writer states that only A is necessarily true, meaning that B is not given, and since it does not logically follow from A, there is no way to conclude that John actually is a bachelor.

I suggest a new example."

Djk3 (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per this and my previous comment, I have changed the example. Dhvrm (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

i believe this article is trying to explain the false dilemma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.29.209 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Road example

 * Another example of fallacy by necessity stated less formally:
 * "There are a lot of car accidents on this road. We must reduce the number of car accidents.  There would be no car accidents if we closed the road.  Therefore we must close this road."  The necessity of reducing the number of car accidents is extended to imply the necessity of closing the road; clearly ignoring other plausible solutions to the problem of car accidents. [] []
 * "There are a lot of car accidents on this road. We must reduce the number of car accidents.  There would be no car accidents if we closed the road.  Therefore we must close this road."  The necessity of reducing the number of car accidents is extended to imply the necessity of closing the road; clearly ignoring other plausible solutions to the problem of car accidents. [] []

That does not look like an example -- that's a different meaning of "necessity", surely. --174.119.182.107 (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Overlap with “Modal fallacy” article?
Should this article be merged with the Modal fallacy article, which cites a source dealing with the “modal scope fallacy” among its sources? 50.81.209.157 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)