(April 20, 2014 at 10:16 am)rasetsu Wrote: This is a classic example of affirming the consequent, therefore the conclusion doesn't follow. And the reason you've retreated to supernatural causes is because supernatural is defined as the opposite of 'explained scientifically'; if it isn't shown to have a natural, scientific cause, then it's supernatural. You've picked terms which turn your "argument" into a trivial tautology based on the definition of the terms. (You've chosen an excluded middle which is true by definition. Supernatural in this case simply means "not yet scientifically explained," and so it can be substituted for supernatural in your conclusion, yielding the conclusion that our reality is dependent on things that have not yet been scientifically explained. Possibly so, and possibly not. Either way, it's hardly a stunning result.)
Rasetsu,
At the risk of derailing the conversation, maybe you can help me learn something. I'm struggling to understand the distinction between affirming the consequent and begging the question. The definitions and examples I have sought out are quite similar. Is there a distinction in use based on formal or informal logic? Or am I missing something fundamental?
