Misnamed fallacies ?

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #19018
    crcaccounts
    Member

    Affirming the consequent:
    A -> B and B, therefore A

    Denying the antecedent:
    A -> B and -A, therefore -B

    Shouldn’t affirming the consequent be called affirming the antecedent? The consequent is already affirmed, that’s a given.

    Similarly, shouldn’t denying the antecedent be called denying the consequent? The antecedent is already denied. The fallacy was in denying the consequent.

    #19019
    derosa8
    Member

    Seems like a good point to me Chris.

    #19020
    gerard.casey
    Participant

    Chris and John: I can see why you might think as you do. The names of these fallacies comes from what happens in the non-hypothetical premise, not from what happens in the conclusion!

    You have the hypothetical premise, then you affirm the consequent (problem) and then you mistakenly conclude with the antecedent. Similarly, you have the hypothetical premise, you deny the antecedent (problem) and then mistakenly conclude with the negation of the consequent.

    In the end, names are names but the important thing is to recognize the fallacy, whatever you want to call it.

    #19021
    derosa8
    Member

    Thanks for the reply!

    #19022
    gerard.casey
    Participant

    JohnD: You’re welcome! Keep the posts coming. If something is odd, unusual or inexplicable to you, the chances are that it is so to others as well. You’re doing everybody a favour by posting.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.