Welcome back. This is Amy Hall and Greg Cogle. Thank you so much for joining us. And we are going to get going right away, Greg, with this question. This one comes from Tyler.

Can two people come to conflicting conclusions on a topic whilst holding true to logic and reason without committing a fallacy?

Yeah, sure.

And, well, I guess it kind of depends, well, and maybe there's the clarification there, that holding to logic and reason without committing a fallacy.

So if you mean they can be non-falacious, but still beholding to logic and reason, can there be a legitimate difference of opinion?

And the answer is yes.

Now, again, a lot depends on what one means by logic.

A logical syllogism, which is a line of reasoning, has multiple statements that come to a conclusion, and each of the statements are meant to add up to the conclusion.

Now, if the statements are true and the form of the argument is good, then the conclusion follows of necessity. So in that circumstance, if you have true premises and a form that is logically valid, then you have a sound

conclusion, and the sound conclusion follows of necessity. In that circumstance, you can't have

different conclusions, and people still be right. Somebody's making a

mistaken thinking. Famously, all men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Now, that's the right form. Sometimes the form is wrong, and you have a formal mistake in logic.

Sometimes you're bringing in a detail that is irrelevant. It's not part of the form,

but it's irrelevant. Then you have an informal fallacy like, it's not the form that's problematic.

You're just name-calling, for example, or that's a ad homonym, or you're misrepresenting somebody else's

view in your argument. That's a straw man fallacy.

So the presumption there, and the question is those informal fallacies are not in play.

Part of the ways that there's another qualification, and that is whether there is an ambiguity in the terms that are being used in the syllogism.

That's called equivocation, where you use a term in your discussion in two different ways,

and it's not clear.

So famously, in this discussion about a political policy concern about whether there should

...