Affirming the consequent The false argument that, because the consequence of a conditional proposition is true, the antecedent must also be true. For example, inferring from "If this theory or belief is true, x is true" that "x is true, so this theory is true" or if photographic film is (inadvertently and prematurely) exposed, photographs taken with the film won’t develop as they should – the photographs taken on this film haven’t come out properly, so the film has been accidentally exposed. There are other, alternative explanations which would account for why the photographs taken did not come out, for example, the lens cap may have been left on the camera when the photos were taken, etc.   (see also: denying the antecedent, Fallacy)   Back to: Glossary A-C, Glossary D-H, Glossary I-P, Glossary Q-S, Glossary T-Z   Glossary of selected Judgement & Decision-making, Belief-related, and other Psychology terms A-Z »   » Return to belief, judgement, and clear thinking »   Labels: affirming the consequent, definition: ‘affirming the consequent’, fallacy

The content on this page is provided by a Google Notebook user, and Google assumes no responsibility for this content.