 |
| From Google+ Eastern or Southern Europe? |
Originally published 2015-11-11. Revised with additions on 2023-11-17, for a posting on academia.edu.
Preface
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Blackburn explains 'Any proposition of the form 'if p then q'. The condition hypothesized, p, is called the antecedent of the conditional, and q the consequent'. Blackburn (1996: 73).
According to Blackburn conditional equates to consequent.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Blackburn explains 'Any proposition of the form 'if p then q'. The condition hypothesized, p, is called the antecedent of the conditional, and q the consequent'. Blackburn (1996: 73).
According to Blackburn conditional equates to consequent.
Affirming The Consequent Fallacy
Pirie writes affirming the consequent fallacy is natural for those that confuse 'the order of horses and carts'. Pirie (2006)(2015: 35).
His example
'When cats are bitten by rabid hedgehogs they die. Here is a dead cat, so obviously, there is a rabid hedgehog about'. (35).
The author explains that there are other overlooked reasons for the death of the cat such as being hit by a vehicle or electrocuted. The death of the cat from a rabid hedgehog cannot be reasonably deduced as fact. (35).
It is proper to affirm the antecedent (p from Blackburn) to prove (q) the consequent, but not vice-versa. (35).
So, using his example, when cats are bitten by a rabid hedgehog they die (or when cats are infected by rabies, my add) (p), but the (q) cannot be affirmed to prove (p).
There are many possible reasons for a deceased feline.
Interestingly, Pirie notes that this fallacy is used in the legal system, the courts, as the basis for circumstantial evidence.
For example, based on his examples.
If John wanted to kill his wife Joan, he would have taken out an extra life insurance on Joan.
John did take out extra life insurance on Joan.
Or,
If John had wanted to poison Joan to death, he would have bought poison.
John did buy poison.
Pirie writes affirming the consequent fallacy is natural for those that confuse 'the order of horses and carts'. Pirie (2006)(2015: 35).
His example
'When cats are bitten by rabid hedgehogs they die. Here is a dead cat, so obviously, there is a rabid hedgehog about'. (35).
The author explains that there are other overlooked reasons for the death of the cat such as being hit by a vehicle or electrocuted. The death of the cat from a rabid hedgehog cannot be reasonably deduced as fact. (35).
It is proper to affirm the antecedent (p from Blackburn) to prove (q) the consequent, but not vice-versa. (35).
So, using his example, when cats are bitten by a rabid hedgehog they die (or when cats are infected by rabies, my add) (p), but the (q) cannot be affirmed to prove (p).
There are many possible reasons for a deceased feline.
Interestingly, Pirie notes that this fallacy is used in the legal system, the courts, as the basis for circumstantial evidence.
For example, based on his examples.
If John wanted to kill his wife Joan, he would have taken out an extra life insurance on Joan.
John did take out extra life insurance on Joan.
Or,
If John had wanted to poison Joan to death, he would have bought poison.
John did buy poison.
These both have alternate explanations (37) but when these mount up it becomes easier for a court to find someone guilty of a crime. (37).
Pirie writes that this fallacy under review, is used to impute motives to a person. (37). This could be committed in a legal and court context, or like to find guilt with someone.
Perhaps in truth, perhaps in error.
Logically fallacious: Affirming the Consequent
Cited
'Description: An error in formal logic where if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true, as a result.
Logical Form: If P then Q. Q. Therefore, P. Example #1: If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend. I have more money to spend. Therefore, taxes must have been lowered.
Explanation: I could have had more money to spend simply because I gave up crack-cocaine, prostitute solicitation, and baby-seal-clubbing expeditions.'
'References: Jevons, W. S. (1872). Elementary lessons in logic: deductive and inductive : with copious questions and examples, and a vocabulary of logical terms. Macmillan.'
(Quite the examples from the website...)
Cited
'“Affirming the Consequent” is the name of an invalid conditional argument form. You can think of it as the invalid version of modus ponens.
Below is modus ponens, which is valid:
1. If A then B
2. A
Therefore, B
Now, below is the invalid form that you get when you try to infer the antecedent by affirming the consequent:
1. If A then B
2. B
Therefore, A
No matter what claims you substitute for A and B, any argument that has the form of I will be valid, and any argument that AFFIRMS THE CONSEQUENT will be INVALID.
Remember, what it means to say that an argument is invalid is that IF the premises are all true, the conclusion could still be false. In other words, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Here’s an example:
1. If I have the flu then I’ll have a fever.
2. I have a fever.
Therefore, I have the flu.
Here we’re affirming that the consequent is true, and from this, inferring that the antecedent is also true.
But it’s obvious that the conclusion doesn’t have to be true. Lots of different illnesses can give rise to a fever, so from the fact that you’ve got a fever there’s no guarantee that you’ve got the flu.'
(Yes, sadly I had the mumps and a fever as a child)
(Therefore a valid deductive argument can have:
False premises and a true conclusion (FT)
False premises and a false conclusion (FF)
True premises and a true conclusion (TT)
However... True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid
Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments
These also have true conclusions)
---
Cumulative evidences
In PhD thesis research, this fallacy connects to cumulative evidences. One evidence by itself may not lead to a reasonable conclusion, but the more cumulative evidences there are, the more reasonable a conclusion.
From a Biblical perspective, historical Scriptural evidences for the existence of the triune God, Christ and the Gospel can be used, primarily in an attempt to demonstrate Christianity as a reasonable or most reasonable worldview, philosophy, theology.
Secondarily, theistic philosophical (philosophy of religion) evidences such as the idea as necessary for an infinite, eternal, first cause can also be used, although they do not prove the Biblical God, they support the existence of such a creator.
Therefore the secondary cumulative evidences can support the primary cumulative evidences.
But this should not be done affirming the consequent fallacy.
I would NOT state simply...
(A) An infinite, eternal, first cause, is necessary (antecedent)
(b) The eternal Biblical God is documented in scripture (consequent)
A to B exists (yes, both A and B exist)
Therefore
B to A means B is A (affirming the consequent fallacy)
All is correct until the therefore...
More premises are required in support of B = A.
Deism and other forms of theism are other worldviews and philosophical and theological possibilities. But these propositions and evidences must be reasonably and accurately compared to the propositions, and conclusions, the evidences, for Biblical Christianity. Through my MPhil and PhD theses research, and my website research and articles, I have connected the historical, Scriptural God to philosophy of religion concepts. I do reason that within reasonable, but not absolute certainty, internally and externally the premises in support of Biblical Christianity as a worldview are superior to premises in support of any other worldview. Therefore Biblical Christianity is true. Note, from my archives, only the infinite God has absolute, 100% certainty.
But reviews of, and comparisons to, other worldviews have taken place. Even without admittedly complete objectivity, having been a biblical Christian from a very young age, this was done with the use of reasoning, prayer, considering propositions and then premises and conclusions as evidence.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
2. I changed my car horn to gunshot sounds. People move out the way much faster now.
ReplyDelete3. You can tell a lot about a woman's mood just by her hands. If they are holding a gun, she's probably very angry.
ReplyDelete4. Gone are the days when girls cooked like their mothers. Now they drink like their fathers.
ReplyDelete5. You know that tingly little feeling you get when you really like someone you've just met? That's common sense leaving your body.
ReplyDelete6. I don't like making plans for the day ... Because then the word "premeditated" gets thrown around in the courtroom.
ReplyDelete7. I didn't make it to the gym today. That makes 1,508 days in a row.
ReplyDelete8. I decided to change calling the bathroom "the John" and renamed it "the Jim". I feel so much better saying, "I went to the Jim this morning."
ReplyDelete9. Dear paranoid people who check behind shower curtains for murderers: If you find one, what's your plan?
ReplyDelete10. Politicians should have two terms ~ one in office and one in prison.
ReplyDelete11. Just remember, there is a major difference between intelligence and stupidity: intelligence has its limits.
ReplyDeleteFunctional Deficit
ReplyDeleteI am learning a new way of thinking from Sandy, my skilled and wise occupational hand therapist. She needs to tell Medicare how I’m doing, specifically how I’m “functioning” in life. I would personally like to see the day when my fingers would be nice and straight again, but that wouldn’t really make a difference in anything I do, so it doesn’t count. (Taxpayers, rejoice in our Medicare program that is committed to not spending your hard-earned money needlessly).
Functionally, I need a better grip in my hand so I could drive again. Already I can go up and down stairs, not sideways, but with the railing on my left side! That shows you what functional means. Now that pushes me to think about my faith in Jesus, is it functional?
ReplyDeleteI was trained to beware of pragmatism, the old John Dewey type. My greatest teacher ever was Gordon Clark and he did a number on Dewey, and I take everything from him. Can you evaluate anything by its practical results? Remember the logical fallacy of Asserting the Consequent? “If I eat kumquats I lose my appetite. I have lost my appetite. Therefore I have eaten kumquats.”
That would translate today: “If I trust Buddha/get high on marijuana/am sexually satiated, I will be at peace. I am at peace, therefore whatever did the job.” Or, more popularly, “there are many paths to whatever, just follow the one that works for you, and stop picking on people who choose a different one.” Because I’m surrounded by all that, that’s why I’m now so eager to load up Asserting the Consequent again and let it fly.
ReplyDeleteBut I know there’s more to it than that. I value the “application” of the Bible and that’s about the same as Consequent, isn’t it? And when you think about the decline and fall of our Christianity today, so much of that came from the old “social gospel,” and that came from evangelical disinterest in pressing social concerns. I’m convinced that abandoning Reconstruction much too soon was at the top of that list. Instead evangelicals became happy fans of that pre-millennialism with its conviction that Jesus has no desire for us to do anything in society until he returns and before then we’ll all be raptured away anyway. Didn’t that sound like nothing at all needs to “function” right now?
Back to my mentor Sandy: I know she’s totally right as she guides me in setting my goals. Having straight fingers is not worth much, and taxpayers definitely shouldn’t pay for it. But being able to drive is. (Did I tell you that I’m typing the right way now, not hunt and peck? Yeah Sandy).
ReplyDeleteSo what makes our Christian faith worthwhile? To put it bluntly, we need to think about our aging church, don’t we? And society’s total disinterest in asking whether babies in the womb are human. And whether we ourselves know how to put our faith to work in our lives.
Is that it? Have I been wrong, putting the emphasis on whether we can talk a good game, can articulate beautifully the deep meaning of something in our faith? Is it instead that what really matters is, what “functional” value our faith has, what difference it’s making not just in how we talk, but in how we live? Don’t we need to think through Matthew 7:13-23:
Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
ReplyDeleteBeware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Not those who says the right words, but only those who do the right things will enter the kingdom—that’s clear enough, isn’t it? That’s not “works-righteousness,” the way we earn our Father’s love, that’s the way we show how thankful we are for his love. If you want to get the words just right, that’s like wanting to have straight fingers again, much too big a deal, when your life is about being “functional,” living out the love of Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteUnless understanding the words is part of the functional way of living? Back to logic again! If the only outcome you desire is something like “peace,” then you can get there a lot of ways, all but one very temporary and misleading. But if the goal (Sandy talks goals) is joining in the grand chorus of bringing more and more glory to Jesus the Christ, then the gospel is the only way. There’s still variety: O Lord, may I bring glory to Jesus by caring for the poor; may I bring glory to Jesus by writing a hymn; may I bring glory to him by explaining all about him to children; may I bring glory to him by keeping this farm from washing away; may I bring glory to him by trusting him in my pain; may I bring glory to him by staying in this marriage and learning to love. But the goal is always “so that Jesus Christ be praised.” Keep that goal clear (thank you again Sandy) and the Lord will bring you there. Otherwise your life is just Functional Deficit.
ReplyDeleteI doubt there is Functional Surplus? But for us to be just plain Functional is why we’re here. In the Garden Adam and the Lord talking things over in the cool of the evening. In the book of Revelation chorus after chorus of glory to the Lord. The best Welsh word of all, Gogoniant, Glory! Or Psalm 119, keep talking over everything in your life with the Lord at your side, everything—being so full of joy that he’s there and that the two of you are on the same page. Learn that from David Powlison: http://www.ccef.org/sites/default/files/pdf/bethlehembaptist/2204002.pdf Hold up your end of the conversation with God, David says! Now that’s Functional.
ReplyDeleteO Lord, keep us from all that trivia in our lives, our passion for straight fingers and wanting people to like us. Help us focus and focus on why we’re here, why the Lord loves us, why Jesus Christ is our mediator, why the best thing in life is that he’s coming soon. Give our preachers passion to help us with that, give our seminaries zeal to model that, may we all in our own lives foster that, fix our hearts upon the glory of Jesus, may we fulfill your own function for us. Amen.
ReplyDeleteD. Clair Davis
Co-worker Frank grabs our security purple with pink umbrella on this stormy day and states:
ReplyDelete"So who is the most gay of us security officers'?
Not I, I stated with no contradiction from Frank.