- Affirming the Consequent is a logical fallacy that takes a known true statement [if P then Q] and invalidly concludes its converse [if Q then P]:
- If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich. Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. False!
- If an animal is a dog, then it has four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. False!
- If it’s raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore it’s raining. False! It could be raining or it could be something else. The “therefore” claim is false.
- How does ‘Affirming the consequent’ apply to evolution? We have not observed “evolution”. No one has, and no one will, despite the effort (see LTEE). What was observed is Resemblance, the Birth Mechanism, Variability and Adaptability. Neither of these (even combined) can logically be extrapolated to “evolution”, namely the hypothesized transmutation of one type of organism into another. Proofs of “evolution” always take the form: If “evolution” is true, then XYZ is true. XYZ is true. Therefore “evolution” is true. This is a classical Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy.
- Let’s see some concrete examples of “proof of evolution” fallacies:
- If “evolution” is true, some fossils are ancestors of and therefore resemble existing organisms. Fossils resemble one another and existing organisms. Therefore “evolution” is true. This argument fails because there will always be some resemblance between two or more entities (even chairs and cats have four legs in general). Also, a fossil can always be from an unrelated branch of the “tree of life” which circularly presupposes “evolution” anyway.
- If “evolution” is true, organisms are genetically similar. Organisms are genetically similar. Therefore “evolution” is true. This argument is false because other hypotheses such as common design account for genetic similarities just as well.
- If “evolution” is true, one might expect common embryology. Similar organisms have similar embryology. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because embryology is expected to match genetics and morphology, hence the previous counterargument applies.
- If “evolution” is true, one might expect vestigial organs. What looks like vestigial organs can be observed. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because what if those organs are useful rather that “vestigial”? And why would “evolution” not do away with “vestigial” organs as soon as they become useless? In sum, why can’t these organs have another reason or origin than “evolution”?
- If “evolution” is true, one expects adaptability such as antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance is observed. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because adaptabilities such as antibiotic resistance are compatible with other hypotheses, not just “evolution”. In addition, antibiotic resistance is ubiquitous, limited, reversible, and never observed to result in organism transmutation aka “evolution”.
- How can “proofs of evolution” avoid the ‘Affirming the Consequent’ logical fallacy? Direct confirmation of “evolution” is unlikely as shown by the LTEE study. Alternatively, an observation that is true for “evolution” and only for “evolution” might also work. In other words, what’s missing from all the examples above is a true statement of the kind: “only if evolution is true, then XYZ”. Of course, excluding all alternatives to “evolution” is an impossible task therefore, given that Intelligent Design is the main rival, proponents of “evolution” need only add a true statement of the kind: “if Intelligent Design is true, then XYZ is not true” to turn their invalid arguments into valid ones. But even this lower bar cannot be met by “evolution” proponents, thus making all “proofs of evolution” invalid.
- Isn’t then all science ‘Affirming the Consequent’? For example, “if Newtonian physics is true, a ball thrown at angle Theta and speed V will land D meters away. The experiment is carried out, and we find that the ball landed distance D away. Therefor physics is true.” No! This is not a fallacy because it meets the “if and only if” requirement and is limited to “everything else equal” cases. Rockets do not disprove this claim because everything else is not equal between them and thrown inactive projectiles. In addition, no one claims a single experiment confirms all Newtonian Mechanics the way “proofs of evolution” are presented. In this case, multiple combinations of Angles and Speed result in the same Distance without violating Newtonian Mechanics because this experiment proves only portions of the theory.
Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Wisdom-Literature-Joseph-Koterski/dp/1598035258
Bye! Again!
Not so modest, J-Mac. It was your list of adaptations. I don’t blame you that you need a break after that feat. Go get a deep breath of air with those lungs of yours.
Which genes are damaged? Can you name them, and the mutations?
We were told that dogs left in the wild would revert to wolves. They don’t. This is what Nonlin said in a previous post:
“So you’re talking about keeping the chihuahua isolated? That’s not what I said. Release all dogs and then see what happens.
I don’t see why they can’t get from dog back to wolf if they were originally wolves turned into dogs. And remember, not all need survive. When the more extreme ones die out, the reversion is much faster.”
That’s false. They don’t revert back to wolves.
What’s up with the tantrum? All your arguments have been addressed to my knowledge. You not liking the answers is an entirely different matter.
Adding to the previous comment, it could well be that another NEW theory competing with Newtonian Mechanics is put forward and that both predict that landing. Well, at that point, this particular argument for [a portion of] Newtonian Mechanics becomes a fallacy. Let’s worry when that time comes. Meanwhile “proofs of evolution” are already there. Agree?
Seriously? No, “it’s absolutely impossible to test an assumption” WITHIN THE MODEL that uses that assumption. Of course it can be tested elsewhere. Go back to that argument: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/nested-hierarchies-tree-of-life/
Nonlin:
Boredom is not anger.
I give specific examples and what is wrong with them. You can at least acknowledge those. Would you accept that they are NOT “inference to the best explanation”?
As far as ‘lungs in aquatic mammals’, either:
a) those animals do just fine OR
b) if that’s a poor solution, how come “evolution” allows them to survive? How come “evolution” did not replace those lungs with [your alternative] ?
Also, it’s another fallacy to think that if hypothesis A fails (not this case), then hypothesis B wins automatically. What about C, D, E…?
And how exactly is ID doing “rather poorly in explaining…”?
And exactly what aspect of “evolution” does ‘lungs in aquatic mammals’ support?
Then we’re in agreement that “evolution” is not science.
Does your [evacuated skull] remember that you asked and were provided with links to the many “proofs of evolution” out there? When will you accept that those are logical fallacies?
Then that settles it. At least with you.
In reply, let me offer this perfect quote for you:
“When will you go to a doctor to have the shit-in-place-of-a-brain in your skull replaced with cognitively-capable tissue?”
When will you stop with the cheap tricks?
This is what I said:
“Nonlin.org: I don’t see why they can’t get from dog back to wolf if they were originally wolves turned into dogs.”
So if you are proof positive that dingos were originally wolves, you might have a point. Now do you? And what “thesis” would that be? “I don’t see why they can’t…”? Wow!
You owe an answer:
Meanwhile, would you acknowledge that “proofs of evolution” are ALL fallacies? If not, can you cite one that isn’t?
What is the true origin of species according to nonlin? What or who put them here? Why? How old is the earth?
I see that you are now doubting that dogs came from wolves. Go figure. Your thesis doesn’t work out, so you backtrack.
If evolution is guilty of that fallacy, then the scientific method itself is guilty of committing that fallacy. According to you, the mere act of testing a hypothesis is a logical fallacy.
No, we’re not in agreement, because the science of evolution is not actually based on any such supposed proofs. The fact that you can find some poorly written pop-sci article on the internet by random laymen using incorrect language to describe or defend it merely reflects poorly on those people, not the science itself.
It is good enough, they are able to exploit a certain niche , what is the design explanation? Whimsy?
ID lacking a who, how , when or why relies on that fallacy. You are not offering who the designer is, how he materially transformed the design into what we see, a means to determine design criteria, when the design took place.
You are discussing hypothesis A .
Aha!
Deductive logic, U R doin’ it rong.
Properly constructed, valid arguments do not become fallacies if the data changes.
They may become poorly supported, or they may suffer from the disconfirmation of an essential premise, but they do not become fallacious.
You appear to be using “fallacy” as if it were a fancy-schmancy synonym for “wrong”.
It isn’t. This does also explain your incoherent response to my previous comment. In a thread that you OP’ed about fallacies, no less. Explains a lot.
DNA_Jock,
Consider that Nolin thinks that assumptions cannot be tested. Why not? because the dictionary definition doesn’t include “they could be put to the test.” Not only that, if I give Nonlin any real-life examples of assumptions being tested they were surely written by “darwinistas.” So there!
After that, how could anybody expect Nonlin to be coherent?
DNA_Jock,
It’s amazing how many people can’t seem to get the difference between validity and soundness. First couple of lectures of an Intro to Logic or Critical Thinking class would cover it.
But, to be fair, some people are just too busy disproving determinism to learn how proofs work. Priorities.
Yes. I am not surprised that IDists fail to understand the nature of evidence, or how a hypothesis is tested. In fact, such misunderstanding appears to be a pre-requisite.
But I still find it gob-smacking when people who claim critical thinking expertise fail Logic 101; specifically, the failure to spot a contrapositive.
Of course, we have had problems with Hempel’s paradox previously.
😉
No, I would not accept that. You argue that none of those examples serve as ultimate “proof”, because you can pull some alternative scenario out of thin air. In doing so, you are ignoring the fact that none of your alternatives have anywhere near the same level of support. For example, I am not aware of any specific implementation of “common design” that provides a satisfactory explanation of the objective nested hierarchy. Because of that, the nested hierarchy remains (pretty strong) supporting evidence for common descent, though it is not some ultimate “proof”. In addition, note that several of your examples support the same hypothesis (like the evidence from embryology), so there is also consilience of independent lines of evidence. Because of all that, we infer that common descent is the best explanation for those observations.
I see newton fielded some questions, so I will just address the remaining ones:
With respect to the whale example: having completely marine animals equipped with lungs is not sensible design. This should be obvious.
I would say common ancestry of those lineages with other tetrapods, and of course it is support for a previous terrestrial life style. It also nicely demonstrates the presence of developmental constraints associated with the evolutionary history of a species.
ETA: corrections of typos
Whereas you are proof positive of “evolution”. Very funny.
Proving once again that you and logic don’t get along. “Evolution” is not a hypothesis. Newtonian Mechanics is not a hypothesis. “F(gravity) = g m1m2/r2 is a hypothesis. See the difference?
Then do you get the logical fallacy? Or still thing “evolution” is true because Bill Gates may or may not own Fort Knox?
Can you cite a “proof of evolution” that is NOT a fallacy of this type?
And if Coyne fails this fallacy test, who among the Darwinistas doesn’t?
“15. Coyne offers several well known examples as Evidence for Evolution: “breeding/domestication… dogs sculpted”, “beak of the finch”, “antibiotic resistance”, “Richard Lenski 1988 E. Coli grow 70% faster and started digesting citrate”, “Barry Hall at U. Rochester removed genes for enzyme to digest lactose in E.Coli, but other enzyme took over”, “Paul Rainey at Oxford on Pseudomas fuorescens obtained wrinkly spreader on top and fuzzy spreader on bottom from all smooth in the middle”, etc. – these are all fine adaptations, but do they represent Evolution? The dog is still a wolf and we have not successfully “sculpted” the cow yet, let alone the fact that breeding is design. If E. Coli is growing larger and diversifying their diet is Evolution, then can we say that humans (Japanese and others) “evolved” since WWII given they also grew larger and diversified their diet? Without a biological baseline, and a clear definition of what EXACTLY constitutes Evolution as opposed to mere Adaptation, the claimed evidence is invalid. Coyne admits this much: “true, breeders haven’t turned a cat into a dog and … bacterium into amoeba”. They actually MUST do that before linking these organisms into a – so far tentative – tree of life.”
Come to think of it, of course “evolution is true” … because “less than perfect”, so count yourself among the “random laymen using incorrect language”. Else why would you bring it up in this context?
You’re absolutely correct about one thing: we are discussing hypothesis A, or more precisely a logical fallacy in support of hypothesis A. So why don’t you stick with this topic?
Btw, do you understand and will you acknowledge this wide spread logical fallacy?
Also “ID lacking a who, how , when or why” DOES NOT rely on that fallacy. Unless you can find examples as easily as I found the ones presented. Can you?
You just don’t get it, do you? The fallacy has nothing to do with the argument that might or might not be right. It has to do with the way the fallacious logic is constructed. Quit embarrassing yourself. It’s painful to the onlookers.
“…within the model using those assumptions” – don’t forget. Are you ignoring that critical part because you don’t understand or because you want to get away with a lie?
Looks like you’re going for the “if and only if” escape clause. That’s absolutely fine if you can prove it.
But for that, you need to do a SIDE-BY-SIDE rigorous, HONEST, scientific analysis of the alternatives (meaning ID vs. “evolution”). And this is NOT happening. So far, all you’ve produced is “un/satisfactory explanations” as if Corneel’s touchy-feely “satisfaction” is a good criteria and a substitute for a thorough analysis.
And btw, you might want to start with little steps like these:
…and as you can see, that’s exactly what I am doing, only we have opposite goals.
…and yes, “nested hierarchy” is one of them little steps as you very well know. Only it not only doesn’t support the “if and only if” clause for “evolution”, but it is also very doubtful altogether as a concept.
So how shall we settle this objectively? It’s safe to say no one on this blog can be an objective juror. And I’ll believe your honesty when I see you lobbying for changes in the one sided academia.
Honestly, if I were in your shoes, I would like to know that my hypothesis can withstand to competition… if indeed you support a hypothesis and not in fact defending your religious views.
Don’t worry nonlin, I do get it. You, apparently do not:
DNA_Jock:
And thus the correct, logical conclusion is “Evolution is true”.
I assumed that you were aware that the contrapositive (the inverse of the converse) is LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT to the original.
Your response:
Did confuse me a little: there’s no fallacy there at all, and whether it is a fallacy or not cannot depend on whether anyone makes that claim.
But when you yet again misused the word “fallacy” thus
the penny dropped. You are using “fallacy” as a fancy synonym for wrong.
As I wrote:
.
Painful for onlookers, indeed.
Holy hell, can any one else here make sense of this drooling and incoherent rant?
Dude, please wipe your mouth, it’s foaming.
The Legacy of Domestication: Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in the Dog Genome
Fernando Cruz Carles Vilà Matthew T. Webster
Abstract
Dogs exhibit more phenotypic variation than any other mammal and are affected by a wide variety of genetic diseases. However, the origin and genetic basis of this variation is still poorly understood. We examined the effect of domestication on the dog genome by comparison with its wild ancestor, the gray wolf. We compared variation in dog and wolf genes using whole-genome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data. The d(N)/d(S) ratio (omega) was around 50% greater for SNPs found in dogs than in wolves, indicating that a higher proportion of nonsynonymous alleles segregate in dogs compared with nonfunctional genetic variation. We suggest that the majority of these alleles are slightly deleterious and that two main factors may have contributed to their increase. The first is a relaxation of selective constraint due to a population bottleneck and altered breeding patterns accompanying domestication. The second is a reduction of effective population size at loci linked to those under positive selection due to Hill-Robertson interference. An increase in slightly deleterious genetic variation could contribute to the prevalence of disease in modern dog breeds.”
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/25/11/2331/1086028
Wait. Did you think you can just utter some nonsense and poof, “evolution” becomes true! The fun never stops at TSZ 🙂
No dude, sorry to disappoint (not), but your statement has to be true. And most certainly this nonsense is NOT true:
Better yet – it’s not even wrong. Now do your best and, who knows, maybe you can convince the preconditioned peanut gallery.
Nonlin.org,
Huh?
Like walto wrote:
I am not surprised that Nonlin lacks basic Critical Thinking skills — that’s par for the course. OTOH I am surprised that he chose to author a post on logical fallacies. That’s brave.
Yes. Seriously you poor mentally-ill ass-hole.
Here what I told you:
Here’s your mentally-ill, statistically-illiterate, “Pro”:
Bold added my me to show your “dictionary said so” stupidity.
My second attempt at explaining this to you:
Which you kept denying despite being something taught in basic statistics courses.
Curve-fitting can indeed be used to test assumptions. Now, stop, don’t answer. I won’t bother with you any more. You lack the mental capacity for a meaningful exchange. Thus, instead of “answering,” take your “answer” and test the assumption that your “answer” fits into your ass.
Yes, this is exactly what is and has been happening for decades. There was a time that natural theology was the most important explanation for biodiversity, and it got replaced by what we now know as evolutionary biology. This did not happen because of my or anybody else’s “touchy-feely satisfaction”, but was due to a large body of research showing ideas like common descent to be a superior explanation to alternative hypotheses. Those studies are documented in the scientific literature. If you want to read how those conclusions follow from thorough analysis, start there.
Your characterisation of generations of scientists as “one sided academia” is quite amusing. In my personal experience, it is scientists that do hypothesis testing and creationists that indulge in one-sided arguments to defend religious views.
ETA: rephrasing
The first geologists were creationists who set out to prove the young age of the planet.
What they found instead convinced them that the Earth was old.
How many people have you convinced of your ideas? Can you link to someone saying that your ideas have convinced them? Can you link to somewhere where someone is using your ideas productively?
If not, well, ironic no?
For those interested in the “evolution of dogs”, I recommend reading chapter 7 on page 171 “Poison Pill Mutations” in Darwin Devolves by Behe…
While some arguments are old and recycled, it could be informative for Darwinists, but especially creationists, whose views of “evolution” within kinds is unacceptable”, should definitely read it…
Here are 29+ testable evolutionary hypotheses:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Your thesis is now thoroughly demolished.
See? You’re not disputing anything in that comment. Because you can’t. Seeking Walto’s help is weak.
Note to self: stop engaging with retards. Especially when you see they are beyond any hope.
So you’re just running to your safe space. You know that has absolutely nothing to do with this particular OP, right?
Thanks for asking. Every time someone like you goes silent (or ad hominem, or in a different direction, or defers to some 3rd party BS, etc.) after a debate, that’s always an indication they KNOW they lost the argument. And so the hit rate has been 100%.
My pleasure.
That’s quite a lot of things. And what is someone like me then? Care to share?
And were we having a debate? We were not.
I simply wanted to ask you after what seems like an unsuccessful OP if you’ve actually got a band of followers that you have convinced.
What argument? In fact the reality is that if you only ever “win” these arguments in places like this then the wider scientific community will never hear them. Will never have the opportunity to be convinced. That’s sort of why I’m asking if you’ve already done that, somewhere out there.
Perhaps you’ve drawn the wrong conclusion? Remember, they also laughed at Bozo the clown!
Pathetic BS narrative. We are debating “evolution” 200+ years after Lamarck, etc. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN?
Except there’s absolutely nothing SCIENTIFIC or simply LOGICAL about “evolution” as I demonstrate over and over and over again.
Hillarious! Yeah, right.
I got my strategy, you got yours (or not). Once again, there is nothing SCIENTIFIC or LOGICAL about “evolution”, so forget “the wider scientific community”.
Testable hypotheses?
Let’s see the experimental evidence for those testable hypotheses…
The main problem with Darwinists is that they seem to be unable, or unwilling, to grasp the chasms of difference between what could happen, and how it happened…
The failure of experiments to date prove this very notion, including the famous LTEE – the Long Term Evolutionary Experiment- that after 30 years and millions of years of equivalent evolution in humans had to be downgraded to the excuses of that the experiment wasn’t really designed to prove evolution…
Really? Why would even call it an evolution experiment then? Call it: “If something other than bacteria evolves, then we will call it evolution, since even YEC know organisms change over time…”
I call LTEE the longest running, Long Term Evolutionary Excuses…lol
People who buy into this illusion as science deserve every bit of deception it provides…If someone is looking for a buffet of nonsense to excuse his behavior or deep-rooted anger driven hate, he’ll find it no matter what the evidence against it…
Once again, there are too many here that don’t actually get it despite protests.
Therefore, let me explain once again how it works:
This particular fallacy is made of two TRUE statements and nonetheless an ILLOGICAL conclusion:
“If it’s raining, then the streets are wet.” – TRUE
“The streets are wet” – TRUE
“Therefore it’s raining” – FALSE
The wet streets MAY indeed be due to rain in this particular instance. This DOES NOT disprove the fallacy because “Therefore it’s raining” is not the logical conclusion to “The streets are wet”.
In the particular “if and only if” case where the streets can only be wet when it’s raining (say a Vegas casino interior street specially designed to be wet ONLY when it’s raining), “Therefore it’s raining” becomes TRUE, hence there is no fallacy – again – IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE.
What happens if one of the statements is FALSE or DUBIOUS such as “If “evolution” is true, blah blah blah” or “vestigial organs can be observed”?
NOTHING. The fallacy is still present as long as the “if and only if” condition is not met when applied to two TRUE statements in this particular construct.
Does this help?
Er, well, yes. What’s your testable hypotheses?
Can you reference that? If you could libel an experement, you’ve just done that.
I believe this is nothing more then your fevered wet dream. In your keenness to prove “ID” or whatever it is (do say) your testable hypotheses is based on (you do have what you are demanding from others, right?) you may have stepped over the line into lets say confabulation. You may remember this “downgrade” happening but I’m telling you that you can’t prove it.
Do tell me again what your quantum seems to signify.
Also you seem to be conflating Darwinism with atheism, I suppose you consider atheists angry or hateful. But there are plenty of theist scientists (and some “Darwinists” too I suppose) out there doing great science. The mere fact of their religion does not disbar them from working on evolution and producing actual science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/index.html#intro
Hand waved away by you. Probably under the sofa? I’d check there first. That’s where that sort of thing usually ends up.
Tell me, do you have a similar set of references (for that is what that is if you care to look at it!) to that set there that describes the exact evidence you are pretending does not exist?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/refs.html
It’s pathetic really.
Tell me J-Mac, starting on this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ where is the first error?
Dare you…
What if the machine is broke and they have a hole in the roof and it starts raining?
Everybody understands the fallacy of affirming the consequent, nonlin. It’s very basic stuff often taught to high school sophomores. What you have to show and have not shown is that those who believe in the theory of evolution have committed it. And you cannot show this, because they’re not intending to use and don’t use modus ponens at all. As KN tried to explain to you several days ago, their model is abductive.
You have to understand how the H-D model works before accusing scientists of committing some deductive fallacy you just learned about and everybody else has been well aware of since Aristotle.
Sad thing is, walto, I am still not convinced that Nonlin understands affirming the consequent. He sloppily elides between what is fallacious and what is untrue.
Nonlin,
Let’s see what we can agree on.
Okay?
Note: this argument is fallacious whether or not it is in fact raining..
It is also fallacious whether or not the streets are in fact wet..
So far so good?
Here is where I confused you:
You ran through a whole series of these affirming the consequent fallacies, claiming (incorrectly) that scientists commit such fallacies. KN has explained to you that they do not. Naughty boy that I am, I noticed that one of your “Affirming the consequent” fallacies could easily be inverted.
So I wrote:
The unstated conclusion is “Evolution is true”.
Perhaps you will understand more readily if I translate this into your raining example.
If it is NOT raining, then the streets are NOT wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore it is raining.
Now, you might dispute the truth value of the first claim, but (and I cannot stress this enough) there is no fallacy here. It is simply modus tollens.
But you replied
Which is doubly wrong. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you must have misunderstood somehow, until you repeated the same misuse of the word ‘fallacy’ while discussing Newton’s Laws.
Oh dear.
DNA_Jock,
Yes you’re right that nonlin is confused about what fallacies are, because he’s unclear about what validity is. I’m charitable though: I think it’s nothing a couple of lectures in a critical thinking class couldn’t fix.
The sad thing is that the guy is so busy disproving evolution that he doesn’t have the time!
Maybe we should all agree to defer all discussion about evolution, QM, ID, science, etc. until critical thinking has been sufficiently covered and understood by all.
I’m sure I have a lot to learn in that department too.
dazz,
Alternatively, people who have never had even the slightest instruction in critical thinking or logic maybe shouldn’t post OPs about fallacies.
“Understood by all”? That’s pretty optimistic, dazz.