Consistency is a problem as well, but that is not what I meant. Logic is the correct term. Inconsistency would be him sometimes breathing in space and/or not breathing on Earth. Which is probably also inconsistent. The general rule is, breathes on earth and not in space. Logically, you either need to breathe or you don’t. If you need to breathe, how do you survive in space? If you don’t need to breathe, why do you breathe at all?
Pure logic does not include axioms like “you need to breathe or you don’t”, nor does logic lead from the axioms “not all beings need to breathe” and “you can’t breathe in space” to conclusions such as either “all creatures who breathe cannot survive in space” or “no beings who can survive in space are able to breathe.”
Consistency is a problem as well, but that is not what I meant. Logic is the correct term. Inconsistency would be him sometimes breathing in space and/or not breathing on Earth. Which is probably also inconsistent. The general rule is, breathes on earth and not in space. Logically, you either need to breathe or you don’t. If you need to breathe, how do you survive in space? If you don’t need to breathe, why do you breathe at all?
Pure logic does not include axioms like “you need to breathe or you don’t”, nor does logic lead from the axioms “not all beings need to breathe” and “you can’t breathe in space” to conclusions such as either “all creatures who breathe cannot survive in space” or “no beings who can survive in space are able to breathe.”
A and not-B does not lead to if-not-B-then-A.
That’s a much better argument to make.