Talk:Affirming the consequent
|
|
Affirming the consequent is just the opposite to modus tollens, right? how is it called?
- How's what called? modus tollens? Evercat 18:38 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I removed: If there is fire here, then there is oxygen here. (Since oxygen is required for fire.)
It was not needed and interfered with understanding the article. Also, it itself is fallacious, as it begs the question of how the sun burns, because there is no oxygen in it. -- Corey 21:31, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Backwards definition
This article seems to have the definition backwards. It currently states, "The fallacy of affirming the consequent occurs when a hypothetical proposition comprising an antecedent and a consequent asserts that the truthhood of the antecedent implies the truthhood of the consequent." But in fact, the truthhood of the antecedent does imply the truthhood of the consequent. The fallacy occurs when a proposition asserts that the truthhood of the consequent implies the truthhood of the antecedent. I'm going to make the change unless someone objects. - Walkiped 01:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Suggest 1 possible wiki link for Affirming the consequent.
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Affirming_the_consequent article:
- Can link Stephen King: ...mple. Here is an argument that is obviously incorrect: :If Stephen King wrote the bible (P), then Stephen King is a good writer (Q)...
Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)