Dr. Econ wrote:...a logical statement might be like this:
1) If A then B
2) Here is B, therefore A
Not, A is B because I said so.
Dr. Econ, you just committed the formal logical deductive fallacy known in baby logic as "Affirming The Consequence."
- If P, then Q.
- Therefore, P.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the onlysufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).
Uh, I got it backwards. Anyway, it doesn't matter. The point I am making is that the previous post quote was simply illogical