|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deathbygraterandluke Captain
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:13 pm
Affirming the consequent.
A->B
B
______
A
Example:
A) If Mike has a Doberman then Mike has a dog.
B) Mike has a dog.
C) Therefore Mike has a doberman.
This is flawed, and obviously flawed but we can do the same thing with less obvious arguments.
Example:
A) If God created everything, then everything exist.
B) Everything exist.
C) Therefore God created everything.
I've heard this argument before.
It affirms the consequent. It has the same reasoning as the above argument, a counter example would be.
A) If Toast created everything, then everything exist
B) Everything exist
C) Therefore Toast created everything.
Notice that all I did was change the subject. From the statement If toast created everything, then everything exist the only argument we can make is Toast created everything therefore everything exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:43 pm
A fair example, but doesn't necesarily equate.
I mean, you'd need to say, "Everything exists, if and only if, toast created everything." Staing the original A of Toast created everything and therefore everything exists" does this in part as B holds true due to A, but C doesn't HAVE to logically come after... You can logically prove that 2 + 2 = 5, and while you may have to bend the laws of physics to get there, it can be done (not by me unfortunately...). So just because A -- > B and therefore it could be interpretted as a condratiction to say C doesn't exist if B exists, im sure we could do it.. ^.^
Also, while almost mathematically sound as a logical statement, its such a dumbass statement isn't it. It relies on the truth of A, which is impossible to prove atm, while B is provable - afterall, we exist - it allows us to disprove C.
Go athiesm... ^.^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deathbygraterandluke Captain
|
Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:46 pm
If we changed statement A to Everything exist, if and only if, Toast created everything then the sequence no longer fits the afferming the consequent fallacy.
Everything exist, if and only if Toast created everything
equates to
A <--> B
A and B are both true.
---------------
we could also say
If X, the Y
Y
therefore X.
this is the generic form for that argument. You can put anything you want in for X and Y and no matter how true it was it would be still be a logical fallacy.
---------------------
on the other hand we can go back to mike and his dogs and say:
Mike has a dog if and only if he has a doberman
mike has a doberman
therefore his has a dog
because
X if and only if Y
Y
therefore X
because if and only if translates to:
If X then Y
in adition
If Y then X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
