When arguing, there are all kinds of pitfalls and logical fallacies to be aware of. One of these is the so-called "Kettle Logic" fallacy, which is explained in the above video. So, what is this?
Put simply: "Kettle logic" is when multiple contradictory premises are used to defend an argument. While these arguments are technically valid, they often run into problems, because they fall afoul of the "principle of explosion", i.e. you can prove absolutely anything!
The name "Kettle Logic" comes from an example provided by Sigmund Freud, of a man who has been accused of returning a kettle to his neighbour, with holes in it. The man offers the following three points to defend himself:
- The holes weren't there when he returned the kettle, so they must have been made after he returned it;
- The holes were already there when he borrowed the kettle, so they must have been made before;
- He never borrowed the kettle.
Of course, this example is very blatant: all three of his assertions clearly contradict one another

- He never borrowed the kettle;
- He would not have borrowed a kettle with holes in it;
- If he had borrowed a kettle, then he would not have returned it with holes.
This wouldn't run into the "Kettle Logic" fallacy, because all three statements can be true simultaneously. The difference here is that the second and third statements are conditionals, not assertions of truth!
If you're still a bit confused, the video does go on to provide a few more examples of arguments that fall foul of this fallacy. So, have you heard any examples of these arguments recently - and, how could they be fixed? Or do you have any questions to ask - or anything else to add?
![[Image: CJTrain.gif]](https://caludin.com/mystuff/requests/CJTrain.gif)
Board Information and Policies
Affiliation | Coffee Credits | Ranks and Awards | Name Changes
Account Deletion | BBCode Reference
Moonface (in 'Woman runs 49 red lights in ex's car')' Wrote: If only she had ran another 20 lights.
(Thanks to Nilla for the avatar, and Megan for the sig!)