Converse Error: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (Removed reference to the Ad server) |
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (Reordered sections, fixed a "current" reference) |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:: Note that, by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. |
:: Note that, by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
* 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). |
* 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). |
||
{{quote| B.<br /> |
{{quote| B.<br /> |
||
The best explanation for B would be A.<br /> |
The best explanation for B would be A.<br /> |
||
Therefore, A (probably). }} |
Therefore, A (probably). }} |
||
** 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. |
** 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: |
** Scientific reasoning is frequently attacked by those who understand this fallacy, but not the scientific method, which has the following form: |
||
{{quote| B.<br /> |
{{quote| B.<br /> |
||
Line 56: | Line 43: | ||
Not D!<br /> |
Not D!<br /> |
||
I must provisionally reject A or modify it to account for D, then continue to seek new information and propose new possible explanations. }} |
I must provisionally reject A or modify it to account for D, then continue to seek new information and propose new possible explanations. }} |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |