Converse Error: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (Removed reference to the Ad server) |
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (trope->useful notes) |
||
(7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Useful Notes}} |
||
Has nothing to do with shoes. |
Has nothing to do with shoes. |
||
== [[wikipedia:Affirming the consequent|Affirming the consequent]] == |
|||
:: This claim is most simply put as: |
:: This claim is most simply put as: |
||
{{quote| |
{{quote|If A, then B. |
||
B. |
B. |
||
Therefore, A. }} |
Therefore, A. }} |
||
:: It's a fallacy because at no point is it shown that A is the ''only'' possible cause of B; therefore, even if B is true, A can still be false. For example: |
:: It's a fallacy because at no point is it shown that A is the ''only'' possible cause of B; therefore, even if B is true, A can still be false. For example: |
||
{{quote| |
{{quote|If my car was Ferrari, it would be able to travel at over a hundred miles per hour. |
||
I clocked my car at 101 miles per hour. |
I clocked my car at 101 miles per hour. |
||
Therefore, my car is a Ferrari. }} |
Therefore, my car is a Ferrari. }} |
||
:: This is popular in conspiracy theories. Here the fallacy is fairly obvious; given the evidence, the car ''might'' be a Ferrari, but it might also be a Bugatti, Lamborghini, or any other model of performance car, since the ability to travel that fast is not unique to Ferraris. Hell, it might even be a Subaru Outback. Note that while this may appear to call all hypothesis / evidence experiments fallacious, they are based on additional evaluations of the likelihood of ''other'' theories, thus establishing that A ''is'' a likely cause of B. |
:: This is popular in conspiracy theories. Here the fallacy is fairly obvious; given the evidence, the car ''might'' be a Ferrari, but it might also be a Bugatti, Lamborghini, or any other model of performance car, since the ability to travel that fast is not unique to Ferraris. Hell, it might even be a Subaru Outback. Note that while this may appear to call all hypothesis / evidence experiments fallacious, they are based on additional evaluations of the likelihood of ''other'' theories, thus establishing that A ''is'' a likely cause of B. |
||
== [[wikipedia:Denying the antecedent|Denying the antecedent]] == |
|||
:: The flip side of the above, where you say that because the initial conditions did not happen, the result is impossible. |
:: The flip side of the above, where you say that because the initial conditions did not happen, the result is impossible. |
||
{{quote| |
{{quote|If a person is wearing a hat, they have a head. |
||
I am not wearing a hat. |
I am not wearing a hat. |
||
Therefore I do not have a head. }} |
Therefore I do not have a head. }} |
||
:: Note that, by the [ |
:: Note that, by the [[wikipedia:Contrapositive|contrapositive]] rule, these two fallacies are equivalent. For example, you could replace "If a person is wearing a hat, they have a head" by the logically identical statement "If a person has no head, they aren't wearing a hat" to turn the first example of denying the antecedent into an example of affirming the consequent. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | ** This differs from the Ferrari example above in that it posits a stronger connection between A and B than just A's truth entailing B's; B is actually giving some positive reason to ''prefer'' A over the other possibilities. (This approaches, without actually becoming, the logical relationship "if and only if".) Also, this form of argument isn't claiming deductive certainty, so the bar is a little lower for it being acceptable. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
Stan: So logically, I didn't spend any money! [[No Fourth Wall|*waves at the camera*]] Goodnight everybody! }} |
Stan: So logically, I didn't spend any money! [[No Fourth Wall|*waves at the camera*]] Goodnight everybody! }} |
||
* |
* An argument made by Obama supporters against conservatives. |
||
{{quote| |
{{quote|Racists who don't like black people oppose Obama's presidency |
||
Bob opposes Obama's presidency |
Bob opposes Obama's presidency |
||
Therefore Bob is a racist. }} |
Therefore Bob is a racist. }} |
||
** This is not to say that you can't make an argument that someone that opposes Obama is a racist, but it does not follow automatically from being opposed to his presidency and/or policies. |
** This is not to say that you can't make an argument that someone that opposes Obama is a racist, but it does not follow automatically from being opposed to his presidency and/or policies. |
||
** A similar argument from Obama detractors is that anyone who voted for Obama did so only for affirmative action's sake, rather than because they believed Obama was a strong candidate on his own merit. |
** A similar argument from Obama detractors is that anyone who voted for Obama did so only for affirmative action's sake, rather than because they believed Obama was a strong candidate on his own merit. |
||
** I opposed Obama because I was for Hillary, [[Hypocritical Humor|you sexist!]] |
** I opposed Obama because I was for Hillary, [[Hypocritical Humor|you sexist!]] |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | ** This differs from the Ferrari example above in that it posits a stronger connection between A and B than just A's truth entailing B's; B is actually giving some positive reason to ''prefer'' A over the other possibilities. Also, this form of argument isn't claiming deductive certainty, so the bar is a little lower for it being acceptable. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
[[Category:Logic Tropes]] |
|||
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]] |
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]] |
||
[[Category:Converse Error]] |
[[Category:Converse Error]] |
||
[[Category:Trope]] |
Latest revision as of 18:55, 23 May 2018
Has nothing to do with shoes.
Affirming the consequent
- This claim is most simply put as:
If A, then B. |
- It's a fallacy because at no point is it shown that A is the only possible cause of B; therefore, even if B is true, A can still be false. For example:
If my car was Ferrari, it would be able to travel at over a hundred miles per hour. |
- This is popular in conspiracy theories. Here the fallacy is fairly obvious; given the evidence, the car might be a Ferrari, but it might also be a Bugatti, Lamborghini, or any other model of performance car, since the ability to travel that fast is not unique to Ferraris. Hell, it might even be a Subaru Outback. Note that while this may appear to call all hypothesis / evidence experiments fallacious, they are based on additional evaluations of the likelihood of other theories, thus establishing that A is a likely cause of B.
Denying the antecedent
- The flip side of the above, where you say that because the initial conditions did not happen, the result is impossible.
If a person is wearing a hat, they have a head. |
- Note that, by the contrapositive rule, these two fallacies are equivalent. For example, you could replace "If a person is wearing a hat, they have a head" by the logically identical statement "If a person has no head, they aren't wearing a hat" to turn the first example of denying the antecedent into an example of affirming the consequent.
Looks like this fallacy but is not
- Inference to the best explanation. The usual form of scientific reasoning, as well as a lot of Sherlock Holmes' "deductions" (though he's wrong to call them that, since this is a form of inductive reasoning).
B. |
- This differs from the Ferrari example above in that it posits a stronger connection between A and B than just A's truth entailing B's; B is actually giving some positive reason to prefer A over the other possibilities. (This approaches, without actually becoming, the logical relationship "if and only if".) Also, this form of argument isn't claiming deductive certainty, so the bar is a little lower for it being acceptable.
- Scientific reasoning is frequently attacked by those who understand this fallacy, but not the scientific method, which has the following form:
Examples of Converse Error include:
- In American Dad, Stan sinks his entire savings to build a rocket for Steve to win a contest.
Stan: You gotta spend money to make money. |
- An argument made by Obama supporters against conservatives.
Racists who don't like black people oppose Obama's presidency |
- This is not to say that you can't make an argument that someone that opposes Obama is a racist, but it does not follow automatically from being opposed to his presidency and/or policies.
- A similar argument from Obama detractors is that anyone who voted for Obama did so only for affirmative action's sake, rather than because they believed Obama was a strong candidate on his own merit.
- I opposed Obama because I was for Hillary, you sexist!