I can't really stand it when Tom discusses atheism/agnosticism

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

202 posts / 0 new


Quote Antifascist:

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."

  1. If P, then Q.
  2. Q.
  3. 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).

The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise Q, which affirms the "then" clause of the conditional premise.

Uh, I got it backwards. Anyway, it doesn't matter. The point I am making is that the previous post quote was simply illogical

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm