Thread: Why *ought* we conclude because of multiple fingerprints, therefore patsy? -Not what is y…
Why *ought* we conclude because of multiple fingerprints, therefore patsy? -Not what is your opinion, who do you like, what’s your intuition - but why logically ought we conclude patsy from that? It’s a non sequitur. / It was the claim / @believeincuh This doesn’t follow moron / That was her answer in the debate / That was her answer in the debate / so it’s not an obvious conclusion? LOL / So you’re admitting fingerprints dont = patsy and you do prove my point. / I think both were / That’s a non sequitur because there are many reasons why there can be multiple fingertips and dna / if it’s a p…
Chain 3 of 3 · 2 replies
- Jay Dyer
Multiple fingerprints do not imply the existence of a patsy.
“Why *ought* we conclude because of multiple fingerprints, therefore patsy? -... but why logically ought we conclude patsy from that? It’s a non sequitur.”
Subjects
1Jay argues that the conclusion of a 'patsy' based on multiple fingerprints is a non sequitur and not logically valid.