One common logical fallacy is known as ‘affirming the consequent’. Arguments that commit this fallacy have this general form:
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.
(In technical terminology, P is the antecedent of the first, conditional premise and Q is the consequent of that premise. The second premise of the argument affirms the consequent of the first premise [...]
Archive for the ‘Fallacy Files’ Category
Fallacy Files #2: Dawkins on Religion and Evil
Posted in Fallacy Files, tagged anti-religion, logical fallacies, Richard Dawkins on 22 October 2008 | Leave a Comment »
Logicians routinely distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions. If X is a necessary condition for Y, then wherever there is Y there is also X; but the reverse may not be true (there may be X without Y). If X is a sufficient condition for Y, then wherever there is X there is also Y; [...]
Fallacy Files #1: Dawkins on “The Argument From Beauty”
Posted in Fallacy Files, tagged logical fallacies, Richard Dawkins, theistic arguments on 6 October 2008 | 3 Comments »
The God Delusion was one of my favourite reads in 2006. It’s a fantastic book, although not for the reasons the author intended. For not only does it illustrate in glorious technicolour the intellectual superficiality of modern atheistic apologetics, it’s also a treasure trove of fallacies for anyone seeking case studies for a course in [...]
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
-
Hit Parade
Archives
Categories
Books I Wrote
