|
|
Is the conclusion "We shall see" a fallacy, or a bias?Example: P1: Evidence against thing X exists. P2: I like thing X. P3: I believe evidence will come out absolving thing X. C: Therefore, we shall see. Or when someone always ends a conversation with, "we shall see" only after evidence has falsified their beliefs. It seems to be an appeal to faith in order to continue holding onto one's beliefs. |
| asked on Friday, Sep 22, 2023 02:09:42 PM by Jason Mathias | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.
|
|
RationalWiki refers to this as the 'escape to the future'. Dr Bo refers to this as the 'argument to the future'. P1) There is no evidence for X P2) In the future, however, there will be evidence for X C) X is true. The problem is in P2). How do you even know there will be evidence for X in the future? This is a claim that itself requires evidence. Taking out P2), we are left with P1) and C). "There is no evidence for X" -> "X is true"; an obvious non sequitur. Specifically, it could be an appeal to faith, or wishful thinking. The above analysis assumes one has no reasons to believe that there will be evidence absolving X in the future. |
|||
| answered on Friday, Sep 22, 2023 04:24:12 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | ||||
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
| ||||
