<story><title>Kettle Logic</title><url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>a_shovel</author><text>It seems that this is a sort of &amp;quot;dual&amp;quot; to what&amp;#x27;s called &amp;quot;Argument in the alternative&amp;quot; [1], which I&amp;#x27;ve seen confused for kettle logic more often than I&amp;#x27;ve seen kettle logic used itself.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s a subtle distinction. Argument in the alternative considers multiple different possibilities as hypotheticals in order to rule them all out, but isn&amp;#x27;t that kind of what kettle logic does as well? Can a kettle logic argument be easily rephrased into an argument in the alternative?&lt;p&gt;I feel like there&amp;#x27;s a difference between them that&amp;#x27;s more than just whether the argument is true&amp;#x2F;valid or not, but I can&amp;#x27;t quite put it into words.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Argument_in_the_alternative&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Argument_in_the_alternative&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Jtsummers</author><text>The &amp;quot;even if&amp;quot; bit from your link is helpful to consider.&lt;p&gt;Kettle logic:&lt;p&gt;1. I wasn&amp;#x27;t there.&lt;p&gt;2. I was there but had no motive.&lt;p&gt;3. I was there, had motive, but had no means.&lt;p&gt;Argument in the alternative:&lt;p&gt;1. I wasn&amp;#x27;t there.&lt;p&gt;2. Even if I was there, I had no motive.&lt;p&gt;3. Even if I was there and had motive, I had no means.&lt;p&gt;The first makes three conflicting statements. The second makes 3 consecutive arguments: I have an alibi, but if you don&amp;#x27;t believe my alibi, I still had no motive, and if you don&amp;#x27;t believe my alibi and that I lacked motive, I had no means.</text></comment>
<story><title>Kettle Logic</title><url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>a_shovel</author><text>It seems that this is a sort of &amp;quot;dual&amp;quot; to what&amp;#x27;s called &amp;quot;Argument in the alternative&amp;quot; [1], which I&amp;#x27;ve seen confused for kettle logic more often than I&amp;#x27;ve seen kettle logic used itself.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s a subtle distinction. Argument in the alternative considers multiple different possibilities as hypotheticals in order to rule them all out, but isn&amp;#x27;t that kind of what kettle logic does as well? Can a kettle logic argument be easily rephrased into an argument in the alternative?&lt;p&gt;I feel like there&amp;#x27;s a difference between them that&amp;#x27;s more than just whether the argument is true&amp;#x2F;valid or not, but I can&amp;#x27;t quite put it into words.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Argument_in_the_alternative&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Argument_in_the_alternative&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nwatson</author><text>I think the difference is that in Kettle Logic the presenter knows the truth, and the truth doesn&amp;#x27;t match any of the inconsistent affirmatives ... or else it mostly matches one of them but the presenter believes it&amp;#x27;s easier for the audience to swallow one of the other, false, alternatives.</text></comment>