Logic

You are correct, logic can only show that a conclusion does not follow from given premises.It is also true that a conclusion that is not valid can easily be factual.What I (and I am often one to post my ideas when I think I see a flawed argument) mean when I point out use of a fallacy is that while the conclusion may or may not be true, due to the fallacy we don't have any evidence for one position or another. No support for the conclusion has been provided.So, giving a fallacious argument for a point is really no different then simply stating your conclusion. It is a completely unsupported assertion.

Okay, since this is becoming kind of a minor seminar in logic, let's see what we can do with Mike's argument here. I think the following premises accurately reflect Mike's stated position. Note that I am not addressing whether I think the premises factual.Premise: There are an unknown number of religions in the set X.
Premise: All X are either true (T) or false (F).
Premise: If one out of the set X is T, all others are F.Mike concludes:Therefore X-1 must be F.Also valid, I think, as far as it goes. We are next presented with a question.Of the two positions, "All X are F" and "Of X, X-1 are F and 1 is T", which is the more logical? I leave that question to the public, and especially to MTW.By the way, thanks for the specific invitation, MTW.

I know bupkus about probability, limited to one bunny stats course way back when. You're probably right on the level you are discussing, but using logic, sorry.I'll give out a hint (and I'm a little guilty about this)...It's a bit of a trick question.Since MTW sort of started this and I am formalizing his argument, I will wait on him to reply before I give the answer.By the way, sorry to all if I sound arrogant and condescending.

Again, I don't mean to be arrogant, but once an argument is formalized, we have only the stated premises and valid inferences from them to work with.With the three premises, as I said, the conclusion "X-1 must be F" is valid. The trick question was that neither of the other conclusions "All X are F" and "X-1 are F and 1 is T" can be inferred. Both are examples of the non sequiter fallacy, by the way. So, since neither conclusion is valid, one cannot be more logical then the other.

That is exactly what I said. If fact, that is the only inference (that I can see) that can be drawn for the three premises. The place where you left the realm of logic was when you said that one position was "more logical" than another. There are no degrees. Either a conclusion is valid or it isn't.

You are exactly correct, I think. I was working with what MTW gave me in a small effort at helping him with what logic can do and what it can't, and why a fallacious argument is not support for an assertion.