Quantificational Fallacies is another sub-category with one fallacy listed, which I have linked below. I find some of these to be incomprehensible. I would have to assume that taking a course in logic would make understanding possible, but later we will come to some of these that experts seem to be unable to explain properly. So my question is this. If they are that complicated and incomprehensible, why are they listed at all? Why bother, and who cares? I have come to the conclusion that many of these logical fallacies become listed because philosophers, or whomever it is that comes up with some of this stuff, have too little to do in life that is meaningful....like taking a nap.
This one isn't so bad, but many of these I would put in the same category as those who would argue unendingly over how many angels could dance on the head of a needle. Clearly these are people who are in need of a real job! Later we will get to fallacies that are of more practical value in our day to day lives. Please follow these links for further links.
Quantificational fallacies- Quantification has several distinct senses. In mathematics and empirical science, it is the act of counting and measuring that maps human sense observations and experiences into members of some set of numbers. Quantification in this sense is fundamental to the scientific method.
In logic, quantification is the binding of a variable ranging over a domain of discourse. The variable thereby becomes bound by an operator called a quantifier. Academic discussion of quantification refers more often to this meaning of the term than the preceding one.
In grammar, a quantifier is a type of determiner, such as all or many, that indicates quantity. These items have been argued to correspond to logical quantifiers at the semantic level.
Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion. The existential fallacy, or existential instantiation, is a logical fallacy in Boolean logic while it isn't in Aristotelian logic. In an existential fallacy, we presuppose that a class has members even when we are not explicitly told so; that is, we assume that the class has existential import. An existential fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism is invalid because it has two universal premises and a particular conclusion. In other words, for the conclusion to be true, at least one member of the class must exist, but the premises do not establish this.