@Joe,
Joe wrote:I read this as one of many fallacies that are used to sidetrack what is logical. Affirmation of the consequent states that, A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true.
So A implies B. But how can B still be true when your relating it to A which has not been stated as true, until it is compared to something that is?
I know its simple but it seems that if this is one of the most simple concepts in logic, then I have to make changes to everything I believe is true.
The fallacy is to suppose that because A > B, and because B is true, that A is true. For instance, if it is true that if something is a dog then it is a mammal, and if it is true that something is a mammal, it would be fallacious to conclude that something was a dog.
A is not stated as true, and only B is stated as true (in the second premise) but it is not stated as true because of A.
Essentially, the fallacy consists in thinking that because A is a sufficient condition of B, that B is also a sufficient condition of A. In fact, B is a necessary condition (but not sufficient condition of A) So, in my example above, although being a dog is a sufficient condition of being a mammal,it does that follow that being a mammal is a sufficient condition of being a dog. And, in effect, that is what the fallacious argument says: because A is a sufficient condition of B, B is a sufficient condition of A. And that's wrong.
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace