Is the conclusion "We shall see" a fallacy, or a bias?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
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.
Answers
1RationalWiki 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.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course