Is Wikipedia Always A Reliable Source?

I think mike the wiz thinks that this is a great argument. Hidden behind this is an acceptance as fact the evolution from animals could not produce a human. Given this hidden assumption, then the argument will appear in this form:X -->Y. (evolution from animals produces nothing more than animals.)
Not Y, therefore not X. humans are better than animals (or humans are not "nothing more than animals") therefore man did not evolve from an animal.The above is a perfectly good syllogism. But it is not the one presented in the examplePerhaps a better way to express things would be that from MTW's perspective, the Wikipedia article on logic is showing a bias towards science (and I would say reality) because they do not disclose the unstated possibility that evolution can produce a superior being.I would counter that such expressions are wrong. A logical argument is one in which the conclusions flow inevitably from the premises. Accordingly, even if an alternative is unstated, the mere existence of a possible fact that makes the argument flawed is enough. The person insisting that an argument is of the Modus Ponens form has the obligation to defend it against all possibilities, stated or unstated, regardless of whether those possibilities are true, false, or mere supposition. In this case, that defense cannot be accomplished. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Grammar fixes.

What if we added to these statements, the following: But we are not just machines, therefore free will exists. I think mike the wiz is silently adding that to the syllogism and then evaluating his modification rather than what was actually presented as the example.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

My comment was a hypothesis and was phrased a such.A correctly formed Modus Ponens argument does not rely on the truth or the obviousness of the clauses. It is instead an argument that one should accept provided that the clauses are correct. Similar a flawed argument can reach a correct conclusion, but some arguments are nonviable strictly based on their form. Your arguments suggested that some of the trigger clauses that were supposed to be appeals to consequences were something other than that. My best guess is still that you believe they were actually true.Your objections were drawn to other things than the form of the argument. I took a guess at why you might be doing that. If my guess is wrong, then perhaps the reason you are off base is more subtle.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.