Question

...

Is it a fallacy to logically draw a conclusion from a false premise?

If a person writes a premise that is demonstrably false, and then uses perfect logic (no fallacies) to draw a conclusion from that premise what is the best way to counter the reasoning? I would suppose it is to reword the premise to make it true. But is it then necessary to reword the conclusion also?
asked on Wednesday, Feb 03, 2016 06:54:14 AM by

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."

Like the Site? You'll Love the Book!

This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are.  The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.  With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

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

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0
It is a fallacy only if the falsehood of the premise is evident through poor reasoning rather than just a false statement. For example,

The capital of Ohio is Potato, therefore, it wouldn't be inappropriate to put a potato on the state flag.



The reasoning here is not bad; it's simply that the premise is false. Not knowing something is not the same as fallacious reasoning. This is why very smart and reasonable people draw some terrible conclusions—they simply are working with poor data.

To answer your other question, you wouldn't be countering their reasoning (because it would not be necessarily flawed), you would be correcting a mistake. Once the mistake is corrected (a new premise is constructed), the conclusion must be reconsidered in light of the new information. This is what is meant in science when it is said that all conclusions are provisional . Theories are constructed using solid reasoning, but sometimes the data these are based on turn out to be wrong (more often just incomplete). I think this science analogy is a good one to use (e.g., "Do you think it is wise for scientist to update their theories in light of new data? Wouldn't it therefore be wise for you to update your conclusion in light of a corrected premise?")
answered on Wednesday, Feb 03, 2016 07:05:48 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Comments

...
Jim
0
I read this and immediately thought of the difference between a sound argument and a valid argument. A sound argument is one where the conclusions logically derive from the premises. A valid argument is a sound argument where all the premises are true. Dr. Bennett's example of the Ohio potato flag is a sound argument. It is not a valid one.

I suppose the best way to counter that is what you suggested, reword the false premise to a true one, and see if the logic still holds.
answered on Tuesday, Jul 11, 2017 01:56:28 PM by Jim

Comments