|
|
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."
Hello! I am social psychologist and author, Bo Bennett. In this podcast, I take a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter. As of January 2020, this podcast is a collection of topics related to all of my books. Subscribe today and enjoy!
|
|
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 |
||||
| ||||
