in my biased opinion this is wrong: men breastfeeding?!?!

[Suezoled]

http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/milkmen.htm

This whole page is kooky. The power of the mind?? The guy willed himself to lactate? He willed himself to stop (and took several days to stop). Is this a hoax? :eek:

[T'ai Chi]

Strange in my opinion.

Anyway, there are strap-on milk bottles than men can use if they want, I tihnk.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I didn't take the link, but it sounds like BS to me. Men don't have milk ducts and even if you have developed "man boobs" they wouldn't lactate and you sure as hell couldn't "will" yourself to produce milk.

[Pyrrho]

Plenty of anecdotes there. Any legitimate medical references to male lactation? I suppose it's possible for men to exude fluid from their nipples, but is it breast milk?

Then there's this gem:


For those who claim male lactation is "unnatural," I would have to ask: how natural is canned formula from Nestle' or pacifiers made from petrolium byproducts? If milk production in men were truly unnatural, it wouldn't exist. The fact that it does, leads me to believe that perhaps male lactation is simply nature's back-up system. In any case, it's an interesting phenomenon.

Spot the logical fallacy...

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Any legitimate medical references to male lactation?
I think I've heard of men being induced to lactate by injecting hormones, mainly prolactin. But whether it was enough to feed a baby, I've no idea. In fact, I've no idea what anyone was trying to prove. I just remember reading that it could be done. Never heard of will-power doing it though. Anyone else know if I'm right, or where the references are?

Rolfe.

[EdipisReks]

would he be allowed to breastfeed a baby in public?

[Suezoled]

Spot the logical fallacy...

The logical fallacy that "natural" is good? That processed or man-made things are bad? Natural is better than modified?

Sorry... just being sure I'm catching the right indication here.

[SRW]

I took some medication once and the side effects include,"breast development in men, excessive or spontaneous flow of milk. How ever I do not think the two are related.

[MoeFaux]

Anyone can "lactate". Enough stimulation of the nipples will cause a reaction in the brain that tells the breast to produce a liquid. I'm pretty sure even men can do it. But...enough to actually feed a baby is highly unlikely.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
-----------------------------------------------------
For those who claim male lactation is "unnatural," I would have to ask: how natural is canned formula from Nestle' or pacifiers made from petrolium byproducts? If milk production in men were truly unnatural, it wouldn't exist. The fact that it does, leads me to believe that perhaps male lactation is simply nature's back-up system. In any case, it's an interesting phenomenon.
-----------------------------------------------------

Spot the logical fallacy...
Is "stupid reasoning" a logical fallacy?

[Yahweh]

I remember seeing an episode of King of the Hill, it was the one where "GH (Good Hank)" was born.

Cotton picks up the GH who then begins lactating. Cotton says to the nurse something along the lines of "I thought you told me I had a boy, what's this coming out his nipples", the Nurse responds with (probably) "Dont worry, lactation in infant males isnt unheard of, in fact its so common it even has a name: Milk".

[athon]

It is indeed relative common for human males to be able to lactate. It requires development of mature milk gland tissue, which we are all capable of. It is controlled by various hormones which all men produce, albeit in minor amounts when compare with women.

Could this guy lactat on command? Although it is all anecdotal, I can't think of any scientific reason why he couldn't. Some women can lactate just by hearing a baby cry. The leap is not a large one, ultimately.

Now if he could lactate beer through willpower, he would be much more popular at BBQ's.

Athon

[patoco12]

Spot the logical fallacy...


"If milk production in men were truly unnatural, it [male lactation] wouldn't exist."


That is a logical implication -- IF milk production was unnatural, THEN it wouldn't exist. We'll shorthand this statement to A --> B, where A represents "IF milk production is unnatural" and B represents "it doesn't exist".


"The fact that it does,..."

The poster establishes that B is false, so we have ~B.

"...leads me to believe that perhaps male lactation is simply nature's back-up system."

From this, the poster extracts ~A, or milk production is natural! So from A-->B, the poster has extracted ~B-->~A, which is actually correct.

The only fallicy is that the poster assumed A-->B (If milk production was unnatural, then it wouldn't exist), which obviously has no grounds.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Plenty of anecdotes there. Any legitimate medical references to male lactation? I suppose it's possible for men to exude fluid from their nipples, but is it breast milk?

Then there's this gem:


For those who claim male lactation is "unnatural," I would have to ask: how natural is canned formula from Nestle' or pacifiers made from petrolium byproducts? If milk production in men were truly unnatural, it wouldn't exist. The fact that it does, leads me to believe that perhaps male lactation is simply nature's back-up system. In any case, it's an interesting phenomenon.

Spot the logical fallacy...

The problem for the idiot that wrote this, is his own statement:

"If milk production in men were truly unnatural, it wouldn't exist. " By that reasoning, existence of something means it is natural. Therefore canned formula from Nestle is natural. Yet the author claims it is not...

The logic has self destructed before it even took off...

As for the actual logical fallacy...

A - it is natural
B - it exists

Ok, we have IF not a then not b. B, therefore A.

Aha, affirming the consequent. :)

(edited to change assuming to affirming...)

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by patoco12



"If milk production in men were truly unnatural, it [male lactation] wouldn't exist."


That is a logical implication -- IF milk production was unnatural, THEN it wouldn't exist. We'll shorthand this statement to A --> B, where A represents "IF milk production is unnatural" and B represents "it doesn't exist".


"The fact that it does,..."

The poster establishes that B is false, so we have ~B.

"...leads me to believe that perhaps male lactation is simply nature's back-up system."

From this, the poster extracts ~A, or milk production is natural! So from A-->B, the poster has extracted ~B-->~A, which is actually correct.

The only fallicy is that the poster assumed A-->B (If milk production was unnatural, then it wouldn't exist), which obviously has no grounds.

Now here is a proper fallacy... A->B is NOT the same as B->A.

[patoco12]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy


Now here is a proper fallacy... A->B is NOT the same as B->A.


Did you read my post? I never said that. I said you can derive ~B -> ~A from A -> B. ~B means "not B" and ~A means "not A". The point of my post was just what you explained: while the logic the writer used was correct, the original statement was not.

[ImpyTimpy]

Sorry but you're wrong. The logic is incorrect. You can't derive ~B -> ~A from A -> B!


(edited to add)

While the truth table would remain intact (A->B therefore ~B->~A), all you're doing is affirming the consequent or presenting circular reasoning (both of which are logical fallacies) depending on the wording used.

Originally posted by patoco12



Did you read my post? I never said that. I said you can derive ~B -> ~A from A -> B. ~B means "not B" and ~A means "not A". The point of my post was just what you explained: while the logic the writer used was correct, the original statement was not.

[patoco12]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Sorry but you're wrong. The logic is incorrect. You can't derive ~B -> ~A from A -> B!



Yes, you can. Here is the truth table that proves it:
(excuse me for the bad formatting)

<pre>
| A | B | ~B | ~A | A -> B | ~B -> ~A |
|------------------------------------------------
| T | T | F | F | T | T |
| T | F | T | F | F | F |
| F | T | F | T | T | T |
| F | F | T | T | T | T |
</pre>


No doubt you've worked out this truth table already.

But here is the catch: If A->B is not valid (as in the male lactation statement), then ~B->~A is not valid either.

The fallacy for the author was assuming the statement "if male lactation was unnatural, then it would not exist" was a correct implication.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by patoco12


Yes, you can. Here is the truth table that proves it:
(excuse me for the bad formatting)

<pre>
| A | B | ~B | ~A | A -> B | ~B -> ~A |
|------------------------------------------------
| T | T | F | F | T | T |
| T | F | T | F | F | F |
| F | T | F | T | T | T |
| F | F | T | T | T | T |
</pre>


No doubt you've worked out this truth table already.

But here is the catch: If A->B is not valid (as in the male lactation statement), then ~B->~A is not valid either.

The fallacy for the author was assuming the statement "if male lactation was unnatural, then it would not exist" was a correct implication.
While the truth table remains in tact, you're simply committing a logical fallacy of circular reasoning or begging the question. That's why you can't derive it and claim it's correct. For example:

If bible is the word of God then surely the Bible is divinely inspired. I mean, let's face it, if the bible wasn't divinely inspired, it wouldn't be the word of God.

That's a logical fallacy called circulum in demonstrando. The truth table itself remains in tact, but you've committed a logical fallacy. :)

The actual fallacy the author committed was affirming the consequent. The logical fallacy is demonstranted in the form of if A then B, B therefore A. In our case we have If Not A then Not B, B therefore A. The consequent is simply repeated and A given as the conclusion. It "sounds" right, but it's logically incorrect.

[ImpyTimpy]

Ok, I understand what you're getting at now. From a purely logical point of view (without meaning) the truth table would be satisfied and there would be no fallacy presented.

Since A->B can be altered into Not B->Not A we'd get:

Not A->Not B change to B->A
B->A
B
Therefore
A

Which logically is correct :eek:. Once meaning is introduced the fallacy becomes clear however.

[patoco12]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

While the truth table remains in tact, you're simply committing a logical fallacy of circular reasoning or begging the question. That's why you can't derive it and claim it's correct. For example:

If bible is the word of God then surely the Bible is divinely inspired. I mean, let's face it, if the bible wasn't divinely inspired, it wouldn't be the word of God.

That's a logical fallacy called circulum in demonstrando. The truth table itself remains in tact, but you've committed a logical fallacy. :)

The actual fallacy the author committed was affirming the consequent. The logical fallacy is demonstranted in the form of if A then B, B therefore A. In our case we have If Not A then Not B, B therefore A. The consequent is simply repeated and A given as the conclusion. It "sounds" right, but it's logically incorrect.

When did I commit that fallacy? I've said all along that the author's suggestion was incorrect ("if male lactation was unnatural, then it wouldn't exist"). Since the original was invalid, then the contrapositive ("if lactation exists, then it is natural") is also invalid. That is the fallacy of the author's argument. I suspect we are saying the same thing.

I've merely replied to the following accusations:

1. That I stated that if A->B then B->A (I NEVER said or implied that)

2. That we can't get ~B->~A from A->B (in fact, they are the same thing)

3. That I am trying to use circular logic (the author of the lactation article is begging the question, not me)

[Blondin]

If "lactating" means to produce milk from one's breasts then what the heII is "vegetating"?

It sounds really uncomfortable.

:confused: