Spotlight on Affirming the Consequent Fallacy for Better Thinking and Mental Health
Nick Lechnir, ACB, CPD
Vice President Education TM - Learning and Development Administrator at Optum Serve
Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that occurs when someone makes an invalid inference from a conditional statement, or "if-then" statement, by assuming a specific cause based on an observed effect without considering other potential causes. It's also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency.
Example 1: If it's nighttime, the sky is dark. The sky is dark. Therefore, it's nighttime.
P1: If it's nighttime, the sky is dark.
P2: The sky is dark.
C: Therefore, it's nighttime.
This conclusion is invalid because the sky is also dark at certain other times of the day, such as during thunderstorms.
Example 2: If the god of the Christian bible exists, then through his revelatory actions in some way manifest that he exists. That manifestation is true or has occurred. Therefore, God exists.
P1: If the god of the Christian bible exists, then through his revelatory actions in some way manifest that he exists.
P2: That manifestation is true or has occurred.
C: Therefore, God exists.
This conclusion is invalid because what may be observed, believed or interpreted as manifestation through revelatory actions of the Christian god of the bible, may in fact be a different god such as Allah, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, or one of thousands gods that have been described in human history, or a completely natural unguided random event in the world or universe.
Affirming the consequent can be easy to commit because it looks similar to the valid argument form modus ponens, which involves affirming the antecedent of an if-then statement. However, in an invalid conditional argument like affirming the consequent, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens might be "If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work. Today is Tuesday. Therefore, John will go to work." This is a deductive argument form and rule of inference. It can be summarized as "P implies Q. P is true. Therefore, Q must also be true."
P1: If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work.
Recommended by LinkedIn
P2: Today is Tuesday.
C: Therefore, John will go to work.
Affirming the consequent is an inductive argument, which is an assertion that uses specific premises or observations to make a broader generalization. Inductive arguments, by their nature, possess some degree of uncertainty, and in some cases are entirely false or can never be verified as true.
The fallacy of affirming the consequent occurs when a person draws a conclusion that if the consequent is true, then the antecedent must also be true. This is a form of circular reasoning. The consequent is the "then" part of the conditional statement, though at times you won't see the word "then" used.
See also:
How have you seen affirming the consequent fallacy used or have you used it yourself in everyday language or personal interactions?
I sincerely appreciate your interest and support. Our mission is to always provide great content in helping you learn more about critical thinking, communication, speaking, presentation and learning skills.
Always keep leaping forward,
NJ
#academy #arrange #cognitivebias #cognitivedistortions #communication #conspiracytheories #criticalthinking #defensemechanisms #design #development #educational #engage #enhance #flashcards #growthmindset #intelligence #interviews #learn #learning #leapfrogging #learningcourses #logicalfallacies #myths #personalities #philosophy #posters #powerful #presentations #printable #produce #psychology #references #research #skills #speaking #success #superstitions #thinking #videos #workbooks #writing