LOGICAL FALLACY
By Jon Rappoport,
Author of the LOGIC AND ANALYSIS COURSE
MAY 23, 2010. Since I sent out the outline for my logic course, I’ve received numerous inquiries about this 18-lesson program.
Today, I want to focus on one of many logical fallacies. I want to show you how understanding it can make a great difference in grasping the guts of public discourse.
In logic, there is an error called AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT.
Here’s a little background. Take this statement: IF IT SNOWS, THEN THERE ARE CLOUDS.
The first part of the statement, the “if” part, is called the antecedent. The second part, the “then” part, is called the consequent.
Affirming the consequent goes this way: IF IT SNOWS, THEN THERE ARE CLOUDS. THERE ARE CLOUDS. THEREFORE, THERE IS SNOW.
This is an error in logic. Why? Because, to put it simply, you can have cloudy days without any snow at all.
Here it is again:
IF IT SNOWS, THERE ARE CLOUDS.
THERE ARE CLOUDS.
THEREFORE, THERE IS SNOW.
WRONG.
There might or might not be snow. We don’t know.
Now, let’s take a real-life example of this situation. Let’s dress it up and confuse it.
“Scientists who support the notion of manmade global warming are vigorous in their defense of the theory. They are willing to take their battle into the hall of government, because they view the planetary climate changes as ominous for all of us. These researchers are passionate in their recommendations that laws must be passed—laws which will cap carbon emissions all over the world before it’s too late for the human species.
“Despite criticism from opponents who say scientists should remain in their labs and refrain from overt politicking, these researchers are forging ahead. You have to ask yourself why. Once all the debris of partisan bickering is swept out of the way, what’s left is the obvious truth: these scientists have worked the numbers and they have seen the disastrous crunch toward which we are rapidly heading. They are doing what they must to avoid a grim outcome for an industrialized world.”
Now, when we boil down that argument, what we get is something like this:
If global-warming scientists have found that man has, in fact, pushed himself to the brink of destruction, then these scientists will make a strong push to cap carbon emissions all over the planet.
These scientists ARE pushing hard to cap carbon emissions.
Therefore, these scientists have discovered the truth: man HAS caused the planet to warm up to a very dangerous level.
WRONG.
This argument is affirming the consequent.
See that.
See that the pattern is the same as in the simple example of the snow and the clouds. Or in this pattern:
IF A CAR HAS A GOOD ENGINE, IT WILL GET YOU FROM HOME TO THE SUPERMARKET.
THE CAR DOES GET YOU TO THE SUPERMARKET.
THEREFORE, IT HAS A GOOD ENGINE.
WRONG.
The car might or might not have a good engine. We don’t know whether it does based purely on the fact that it can get you to the supermarket.
IF A SCIENTIST KNOWS THE TRUTH, HE’LL PUSH FOR ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATION.
HE IS PUSHING FOR ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATION.
THEREFORE, HE MUST KNOW THE TRUTH.
WRONG.
He might or might not know the truth. Pushing for its application is no guarantee he knows the truth.
It’s often the unstated but implied reasoning that is used to make an argument. When you see the implied reasoning and lay it out, you can see the error.
But it gets a lot worse than this. A lot worse.
I recently found an article that made a complex argument about bio-warfare research. When I boiled it down, I was left with this:
Laboratory X did research on bio-war germs in the 1960s.
Dr. Y worked at Lab X in the 1960s.
Dr. Y was an associate of Mr. Z, a former CIA agent.
Therefore, Lab X synthetically made the Swine Flu virus.
WHAT?
When you tear the fat away from the argument and see the bones, you realize how absurd the argument really is.
Of course, there are some people who are disposed to believe it anyway. They want to believe it. They will take any tidbit and use it to bolster what they already believe.
And when you point out how foolish the above argument is, they’ll say, “You mean you don’t believe these labs make viruses?”
Excuse me, but that’s not what THIS PARTICULAR argument stated. Get your head on straight.
A disciplined study of logic is vital for sane public discourse.
Jon Rappoport is the author of LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, a course for high school students and adults. He has been working as an investigative reporter for 25 years. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize early in his career, he has published articles in LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. He has taught in several private schools in New York and Los Angeles. At Amherst College, where he graduated with a BA in philosophy, he studied formal logic under Joseph Epstein, a revered professor of philosophy. Mr. Rappoport can be reached at qjrconsulting@gmail.com His work can be found at www.nomorefakenews.com and www.insolutions.info