Subtle, persuasive, and almost always illogical, Affirming the Consequent is a flawed “if-then” argument which argues that an “if” statement is true because a “then” statement is true. Like “If your car is out of gas, it won’t start. It won’t start; therefore, it’s out of gas.” Using real evolutionary examples, let’s see when Affirming the Consequent is (and isn’t) a fallacy.
Correction to video: At the 3:42 mark, Patricia said, "affirming the consequent is only a fallacy if there are other ways for the antecedent to be true," but meant consequent.
Up Next in S2: Fallacies
-
Denying the Antecedent
Denying the Antecedent is a type of flawed “if-then” argument which claims that a “then” statement is false because an “if” statement is also false. Like “If you have a dog, you are a pet owner. You do not have a dog. Therefore, you are not a pet owner.” Using real examples from the origins contr...
-
Slippery Slope Fallacies
Is it a fallacy to say that evolutionary beliefs can lead to serious social consequences? Slippery slope arguments, which propose that an action or attitude will lead to some negative outcome, are considered fallacies if the dreaded outcome isn’t really likely given the premises. Here are some ti...
-
Either-Or Type Fallacies
Either-or fallacies present only two mutually exclusive options (correlatives), when more options may be possible. But there are other types of correlative-based fallacies too. Here are some examples of the most common ones—and an easy bonus hack for answering faulty “if-then” arguments.
Correct...
