Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,713
edits
Appeal to Consequences: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (categories and general cleanup) |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
:: The truth or falsity of a statement is decided by the positive or negative consequences of it.
{{quote|
The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
The short term costs of cutting carbon emissions would be economically devastating.
Q.E.D: Global Warming is either not occurring, not caused by humans, or both. }}
:: Or, conversely,
{{quote|
The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
The long-term economic benefits of stopping global warming will be enormous.
Q.E.D.: Global warming is both occurring ''and'' caused by humans. }}
:: Ain't it fun when you can use the same fallacy and essentially the same argument and "prove" diametrically opposite conclusions?
When the consequences are that the person making the appeal threatens bodily harm to the other person, that's ''argumentum ad baculum'', which we call [[Appeal to Force]].
{{examples}}
Line 23 ⟶ 25:
** Likewise, evolution is often claimed by creationists to have all sorts of horrible consequences if true, quickly summed up as "If we're descended from monkeys, then we will act like monkeys." Besides most of these negative consequences being false or irrelevant (If humans are apes, then to act 'like an ape' does not preclude acting like a human), the desirability of common ancestry has nothing to do with it's truth value.
* When the question isn't about the truth or falsity of a statement, but is instead about whether or not to follow a particular course of action.
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Appeal to Consequences]]
| |||