The Fallacy of Assuming the Consequent

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

©Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The rules of Aristotelian Logic prohibit the Fallacy of Assuming the Consequent.

Now, if we start with the syllogism “If A then B” and then assume A, then we can also

conclude B obtains. However, what if we assume B? Can we then conclude logically,

that A obtains? No, we can’t. Because you see, out there somewhere might be the

syllogism, “If C then B,” and then when we assume that C obtains, we can also logically

conclude that B obtains. Therefore, given the foregoing, B might obtain with either the

“If A then B” syllogism, or with the “If C then B” syllogism. Therefore, given the

assumption that B obtains, does not necessarily mean that A obtains.

The foregoing leads to several observations. First of all, all empirical science

violates the rules of logic by using the Fallacy of Assuming the Consequent. You see, in

science, we start with “experience” or the data, (namely B) and then try to reason

inductively that A obtains. In fact, there might be ten other explanations (syllogisms)

which operate to explain why B obtains. For example, consider the syllogism, “If

(C)ancer then (T)umor,” (If C then T) and then assume that (T) obtains in 85 out of 100

cases. A scientist then might conclude that (C)ancer obtains. However, this violates the

Fallacy of Assuming the Consequent. Because you see, it may be that the syllogism

“If (B)oil then (T)umor” (If B then T). This an alternate explanation of the data.

Moreover, any attempt to massage the data by excluding some results using a standard

deviation is also invalid, because, there is no objective method of determining a valid

standard deviation. Additionally, we can also see that since Logical Positivism, by

definition, involves logic, the aforesaid Logical Positivism can have nothing to do with

the scientific method, since the scientific method violates the logical Fallacy of

Assuming the Consequent, also known as the Inductive Fallacy. Also we can see that

the common sense expression “Do not put the cart before the horse” is a good way of

restating the prohibition against Assuming the Consequent. And finally, we can also see

that a Loaded Question also violates the Fallacy of Assuming the Consequent. For

example, consider the question, “Joe, how many years have you been playing baseball?”

This can be translated as, “If Joe then professional baseball player.” However, it may

be that Joe is not a professional baseball player, and, it also may be that that just because

a professional baseball player obtains, this does not necessarily mean that Joe has been

playing baseball for years, instead it may be that Stan has been playing baseball for years.