Question

...
Chen

Is it an example of affirming the consequent?

I'll have my reporting for hypothetical proposition in my class, and I kinda, don't understand yet about the difference between Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent

In the example statements below.

Premise 1: If Rex is a dog, then rex is an animal.
Premise 2: Rex is an animal
Conclusion: Therefore, Rex is a dog.

Explanation: premise 2 is the basis of conclusion and, in the statement "Rex is an animal" The conclusion is "rex is a dog". It is an invalid argument because Rex may be a cat, or any animal it may be.

It is an example of affirming the consequent?
Is my explanation is correct?
What does affirming the consequent means? ( in more simple definition please)

asked on Sunday, Jul 21, 2019 01:13:08 AM by Chen

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."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
skips777
0
Yes you are correct....proper form is
If (p) rex is a dog, then (q) rex is an animal
(p) rex is a dog
(q) rex is an animal
Affirming the consequent is to switch the P in the second line with the Q. Modus Ponens means mode to affirm by affirming. So, affirming the consequent would mean "affirming the Q", i.e. Affirming it in line two BEFORE you used P, the conditional, in line two to do so.
answered on Sunday, Jul 21, 2019 01:39:10 AM by skips777

Comments
...
Bill
0
Yes, I think you have it on the nose, so to speak.

The point of affirming the consequent in this case is that there is more than one way for a creature to be an animal. Being a dog is one way, but it is possible to be an animal by being a cat, a lizard, a ladybug, etc. That's why the argument is faulty. "If Fuzzy is a dog, Fuzzy is an animal. Fuzzy is an animal, so Fuzzy is a dog." But - oops - Fuzzy is a kitten! Premises are both true, but the conclusion is wrong.

Denying the consquent works, however. Imagine that Fuzzy is a stuffed plush sofa pillow. Like this: "If Fuzzy is a dog, Fuzzy is an animal. Fuzzy is not an animal, so Fuzzy is a not a dog." That is a valid, sound argument.

Affirming the consequent is a common fallacy. Politicians use it every day.

answered on Sunday, Jul 21, 2019 12:14:37 PM by Bill

Comments
...
Jim Cliff
0
You've got it exactly.

Meanwhile, Denying the Antecedent would be a different error of the form

If P then Q.
Not P
Therefore not Q

Or, in your example:

Premise 1: If Rex is a dog, then rex is an animal.
Premise 2: Rex is not a dog
Conclusion: Therefore, Rex is not an animal.

Of course, as before, Rex could be a kitten. Or a Tyrannosaur.
answered on Monday, Jul 22, 2019 07:00:26 AM by Jim Cliff

Comments