Bait and Switch logical fallacy?

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Bait and Switch logical fallacy?

My opponents here have introduced me to form of logical fallacy that has my head spinning. Their overwhelming level of compassion and unselfishness(with other people's money) is on par with the compassion demonstrated by the most devout  praying Christian saint. It's just too bad there is no God to give them halos for this level of compassion.

However, they may be committing a logical fallacy, which I would call a bait and switch fallacy. I would like to get the opinions of those of you into logical reasoning and even get the opinions and angry reaction of my opponents. The fallacy is like this:

 

If A then X. If X then A.

A is not available, is not able to be true.

B can take the place of A.

Therefore, if B then X.

Typically bait and switch scams work like this in business:

A = An advertised coat that costs $50 that can keep me warm. X= a good bargain.

B = A coat that costs $100 that can keep me warm.

 

Our dear compassionate, unselfish "rational" responders do this, to convince themselves they are compassionate:

A = I give money to the poor. X = I am compassionate and unselfish.

B = The rich can give money to the poor.

 

If you point out B has replaced a A you are accused of misstating an opponents position and making the straw man fallacy. So they have understated their own position, when you point this out to them, they accuse you of overstating their position and creating a straw man.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:However, they may

EXC wrote:

However, they may be committing a logical fallacy, which I would call a bait and switch fallacy.  

Bait and switch is not a logical fallacy, it is fraud.

Quote:
If A then X. If X then A.

If A then X - If the road is wet, then it is raining.
If X then A - If it is raining, then the road is wet.

The fact that the argument is valid cannot assure that any of the statements in the argument are true.
For example the road might be wet because someone sprayed it with a fire hose.

 And if the road is in a tunnel, it will not get wet from raining.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If A then X. If X then

Quote:
If A then X. If X then A.
How do I put this delicately?  No!  Bad EXC!  Bad!

A→X does not entail X→A.

Quote:
A is not available, is not able to be true.
You mean, ~A

Quote:
B can take the place of A.
Umm... A=B ?  Or: B≡~A ?
 

Quote:
Therefore, if B then X.
So, (B≡~A)~A├ B├ B→X ? Right?  This is your example in sentential logic.  It's not fallacious and it doesn't represent bait and switch (and bait and switch isn't fallacious, it's fraud).  It's only substituting one thing if the negation of another is true.  That is ~A must be true in order for B to be true.  In a real life example the only way someone would buy the coat in sentence B is if A was not true.  That is not an example equivalent to what you put down after that.
 

A=I give money to the poor.

B=The rich can give money to the poor.

X=I am compassionate and unselfish.

A→X  That makes sense.

B→X doesn't make sense.  X doesn't follow from B.  Also, neither A nor B are equivalent and are not mutually exclusive.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here.  It doesn't make any sense.  Both A and B can be true, but X in your example can only follow from A.  I've not seen anyone try to put B in the place of X.

Care to clarify what your trying to say?

{fixed aiia}

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
He's been on an anti-liberal

He's been on an anti-liberal Jihad for weeks now. And again if A then X does not mean if X then A:

If your head is cut off you will die is true

If you die your head is cut off is not (you could drown, have a heart attack, whatever. )

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Damnit, Matt. I needed to

Damnit, Matt. I needed to fix that formatting error. :P 

Edit: Forgiven, aiia is on top of things. Eye-wink

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Our dear

Quote:
Our dear compassionate, unselfish "rational" responders do this, to convince themselves they are compassionate:

It is ridiculous to put everyone here into the same box, because you do not know what everybody here believes.

 

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Bait and switch

aiia wrote:

Bait and switch is not a logical fallacy, it is fraud.

That's how it's used to sucker people in. You get them to commit a logical fallacy. I'm just wondering if there should be defined fallacy for this type of reasoning. Maybe there already is under a different form. I'm not on any Jihad or saying this should definetely be a fallacy like straw man, I just want to understand how things work.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, and we want to

Yeah, and we want to understand you.  Can you clarify what you meant because your reasoning appears absurd?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:He's been

MattShizzle wrote:

He's been on an anti-liberal Jihad for weeks now. And again if A then X does not mean if X then A:

If your head is cut off you will die is true

If you die your head is cut off is not (you could drown, have a heart attack, whatever. )

If 'A then X' and If 'X then A' are both premises, 'If B then X' is the conclusion.

One can defines the premises however one wishes(if others agree is another matter). I'm defining this as an 'If and only if' statement,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if

so I could also say.

A If and only if X.

A can not be achieved(true).

However, B can take the place of A.

Therefore, If B then X.

 

You must agree that the world is full of Bait and Switch scams(religion being one of them). So being the 'rational and logical' (not given to emotion) people that we all are here, maybe we should try to understand this reasoning fallacy works.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:In a real

Thomathy wrote:

In a real life example the only way someone would buy the coat in sentence B is if A was not true. 

Right and the store makes sure A is not available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch

No, in real life, people fall for bait and swith scams all the time. What is the logical fallacy or is it a fallacy when people fall for this scam? I'm just looking in for a variety of opinions, before I make any conclusions.

Thomathy wrote:

 B→X doesn't make sense.  X doesn't follow from B. 

Exactly. A rational person should conclude this. Yet people fall for bait and switch all the time. Why??? Shouldn't this be a form of logical fallacy like strawman, Ad Hominem, etc...? If not, why not?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:If A then X - If

aiia wrote:

If A then X - If the road is wet, then it is raining.
If X then A - If it is raining, then the road is wet.

 

They are both premises, 'If X then A' is not a conclusion. Sorry I should have clarified as 'A if and only if X'.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:MattShizzle

EXC wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

He's been on an anti-liberal Jihad for weeks now. And again if A then X does not mean if X then A:

If your head is cut off you will die is true

If you die your head is cut off is not (you could drown, have a heart attack, whatever. )

If 'A then X' and If 'X then A' are both premises, 'If B then X' is the conclusion.

One can defines the premises however one wishes(if others agree is another matter). I'm defining this as an 'If and only if' statement,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if

so I could also say.

A If and only if X.

A can not be achieved(true).

However, B can take the place of A.

Therefore, If B then X.

 

You must agree that the world is full of Bait and Switch scams(religion being one of them). So being the 'rational and logical' (not given to emotion) people that we all are here, maybe we should try to understand this reasoning fallacy works.

 

That's not what you've presented.  A→X is not the same as A≡X.  If you're defining this as an 'if and only if' equation, then why do you keep presenting it as A→X.  They mean two different things.  You can't just define the equation however you like.  'If and only if' statements are true if and only if P and Q are true!  'If, then' equations are true both if Q is true or if both P and Q are false!  So, no, you can't move from A→X to A≡X.  They're very different things.  Further you cannot arbitrarily decide that B can take the place of A and then move to B→X from A≡X.  If X is true if and only if A, then X cannot follow from B if A is negated.  So, Which one is it?  Are you going to clarify what you mean because you are starting to make worse sense than you have been.

 

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Our dear

EXC wrote:

Our dear compassionate, unselfish "rational" responders do this, to convince themselves they are compassionate:

A = I give money to the poor. X = I am compassionate and unselfish.

B = The rich can give money to the poor.

 

If you point out B has replaced a A you are accused of misstating an opponents position and making the straw man fallacy. So they have understated their own position, when you point this out to them, they accuse you of overstating their position and creating a straw man.

Have you considered that you are underestimating the complexity of the "liberal" position?

You seem to believe that there is only one clear-cut, right answer, when in fact this is a very complex issue. Consider: part of the function of the government is to protect property. Those with wealth have much more property than those without, and so should pay more. I'm not just talking income, because income for the poor and much of the middle-class goes almost exclusively to things like housing and food, while the rich are able to accumulate more wealth. So, the rich should pay more, as the government is protecting more.

Second, part of that protection is ensuring the rich live in a healthy economy. An economy in which 3% of the population controls over 95% of the wealth, while 50% of the population has less than 1% of the wealth, is not a healthy economy. Witness our current financial downturn. (Not due to a single factor, granted, but a confluence of bad decisions by all parties in our government and those that control the economic power of the US.)

Then, you'd be hard-pressed to rationally argue that one person is worth 1000 or more times the average employee in a corporation. This whole "the rich are rich because they worked hard and deserve it" argument is not rational; not while many people who work hard barely make enough to feed themselves. If it were simply a nice little formula of X work = Y pay, I'd agree; but it's not.

Finally, this concept that the rich "deserve" to be rich is tied very closely with the idea that each person is an island, that their worth in society is not tied to the worth of others in society. No person is independent of the society in which they live. Their entire happiness and well-being is predicated upon the health of the society around them.

And as a side note, I'd like to state that I do not believe people should receive a free ride, either. I believe everyone should participate in society. I believe those that work hard should be rewarded. I don't believe the Magical Mystical Hand of the Free Market is the solution; that simply replaces the government (which is at least accountable every 4-6 years) with those that control the market (who have proven they are mostly above accountability). And, as our current economic situation indicates, they are ill-equipped to handle matters of complex finance. Though they do seem to be quite good at capitalizing on imaginary wealth for their own gain.

My point is, perhaps you are allowing your annoyance at all us liberals to cloud your view of our position. It seems you are trying to simplify it so you can force it into your preconceived notion of what it is we advocate.

Then again, I'm not sure I understand your position, either.

 

[EDIT] As a correction, the top 3% of the population controls only about 78% of the wealth, while the bottom 40% has less than 1%, as of 2001. I was a bit het up when writing this, and may have exaggerated a tich.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Thomathy wrote:In

EXC wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
In a real life example the only way someone would buy the coat in sentence B is if A was not true. 
Right and the store makes sure A is not available.

No, in real life, people fall for bait and swith scams all the time. What is the logical fallacy or is it a fallacy when people fall for this scam? I'm just looking in for a variety of opinions, before I make any conclusions.

It's fraud, not a fallacy.  It's not an equation in logic.  Luring a person in with a product that either a store doesn't have or has sold out of and offering a different product is not a logical fallacy.  It can be represented, but not meaningfully; bait and switch does not have any truth-functionality.

EXC wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
B→X doesn't make sense.  X doesn't follow from B.
Exactly. A rational person should conclude this. Yet people fall for bait and switch all the time. Why???
It's effective.  You're at the store for the item you saw advertised and it isn't there.  You are offered a product promised to be equivalent.  Sometimes people buy that item because they need it and were hoping for a deal.  Sometimes people buy the item because they really are swindled.  I once settled for a air popper that was similar to one that was cheaper because the store had sold out of the one I wanted and I was in a rush.  Whether they intentionally stocked less of the cheaper one is beside the point; I was going to buy an air popper, only I would have liked the cheaper one.

Quote:
Shouldn't this be a form of logical fallacy like strawman, Ad Hominem, etc...? If not, why not?
No, it shouldn't, it's not falacious, only misleading and perhaps dishonest.

Now, what does this have to do with arguments for increased taxation of the rich?

Edit: to clarify, a logical fallacy is an error of logic, usually called a formal fallacy and all are types of non sequiturs.  Many other things are considered falacious and are called informal fallacies.  Ad Hominem attacks are a form of informal falacies because they direct the argument, often, to the character of the person making an argument instead of to the argument being made by that person.  Like Strawman, it is a type of red harring (where the argument presented does not address the original issue).  Linguistics fallacies, like equivocation, are also informal fallacies.  Bait and switch as a tactic used in sales is not representative of a fallacy, either formal or informal, it simply preys on people's desire for a deal or to save time.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBoldSo bold, so well

nigelTheBold

So bold, so well said .... that's what I've been trying to say in the EXC, "Rational Politics" thread. Seems it should be cross posted there for future readers. (done) Hey, run for King, I'll vote for ya, and rip a happy tune ....   "I have a dream" .....


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:MattShizzle

EXC wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

He's been on an anti-liberal Jihad for weeks now. And again if A then X does not mean if X then A:

If your head is cut off you will die is true

If you die your head is cut off is not (you could drown, have a heart attack, whatever. )

If 'A then X' and If 'X then A' are both premises, 'If B then X' is the conclusion.

One can defines the premises however one wishes(if others agree is another matter). I'm defining this as an 'If and only if' statement,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if

so I could also say.

A If and only if X.

But these two statements are not logical premises:

Quote:

A can not be achieved(true).

However, B can take the place of A.

Therefore the conclusion does not follow. Your conclusion would require that B = A, but they are actually separate propositions.

"Can take the place of" and "can not be achieved" would need to be restated in logic terms for there to be a strictly logical argument.

if 'A can not be achieved(true).' means A=FALSE, and the second statement means B=A, then the conclusion is B = FALSE, which is not what you a claiming. So you will need to expand those statements into a sequence of actual statements of logic before we can consider your argument in strict logical terms.

Quote:

Therefore, If B then X.

You must agree that the world is full of Bait and Switch scams(religion being one of them). So being the 'rational and logical' (not given to emotion) people that we all are here, maybe we should try to understand this reasoning fallacy works.

You have not stated a logical argument.

If the replacement (B) is fully equivalent to (A) in every sense, there is no problem, but your aim seems to be to show that they are equivalent in some sense. You appear to be assuming what you are trying to prove, that B is an adequate substitute for A. That is the fallacy, I think it is a case of "begging the question".

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:[That's not

Thomathy wrote:

That's not what you've presented.  A→X is not the same as A≡X.  If you're defining this as an 'if and only if' equation, then why do you keep presenting it as A→X. 

I presentented both A->X and X->A which is the equivilent of A≡X.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote: Have

nigelTheBold wrote:

 

Have you considered that you are underestimating the complexity of the "liberal" position?

My belief is that their goal is not based on what helps individuals and best overall for the society, but rather what maximize their own feelings that are compassionate and unselfish. So the argument with the liberal then is not that the wealth distribution curve doesn't work, but rather that it is selfish.

nigelTheBold wrote:

And as a side note, I'd like to state that I do not believe people should receive a free ride, either. I believe everyone should participate in society. I believe those that work hard should be rewarded. I don't believe the Magical Mystical Hand of the Free Market is the solution; that simply replaces the government (which is at least accountable every 4-6 years) with those that control the market (who have proven they are mostly above accountability). And, as our current economic situation indicates, they are ill-equipped to handle matters of complex finance. Though they do seem to be quite good at capitalizing on imaginary wealth for their own gain.

I agree 100% with you on this. The problem is the people that want to maximize their own feelings of goodness, caring, unselfishness or are angry and jealous have hijacked any rational discussion about what works. It's the church of social justice and economics rather than the science of social justice and economics.

nigelTheBold wrote:

My point is, perhaps you are allowing your annoyance at all us liberals to cloud your view of our position.  

My great annoyance is in the fact that their positions are made to maximize their own feelings that they compassionate and unselfish. That they have some kind of halo because they can see that the current wealth distribution curve is unfair and want to change it. Because they dominate this MB so much it's turned into the church of liberalism where many people are like Mother Teresa or OBL with their extreme compassion(with other people's money) or calls for violent revolution.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Thomathy

EXC wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
That's not what you've presented.  A→X is not the same as A≡X.  If you're defining this as an 'if and only if' equation, then why do you keep presenting it as A→X. 
I presentented both A->X and X->A which is the equivilent of A≡X.
No, it's not.  If it rains (A), then (→ ) it is cloudy (X).  If it is cloudy (X), then (→ )it rains (A).  The first one would be correct and it would be true.  In the second equation A does not necessarily follow from X.  IT IS NOT EQUIVALENT to the first statement!  A≡X means that both A and X must be true (or false) in order for either to be true.  It is raining (A) if and only if (≡ ) it is cloudy (X).  Or, It is cloudy (X) if and only if (≡ ) it is raining (A) (which in itself might not actually be true, but it is valid).

Once again, 'If, then' equations are true both if Q is true or if both P and Q are false.  Another way to put it is that 'If, then' equations are only ever false if and only if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false!  Look at the following truth table and pay close attention to the bold and black truth functions of the main connectors!  This is called the material conditional.

'If, then'

P

Q
T
TT
FT
T
TF
F
FT
F

 

And below is a truth table showing the truth function of the main connector in the material biconditional.  Notice (and I wrote in post #11 it is when both sentences are true, but meant that it is only true when both sentences are both true or false) that the truth function of the main connector is different than in the material conditional and that it is true if and only if both P and Q have the same truth value assignment.

'If and only if'

PQ
TTT
FFT
TF
F
FTF

Now, why would these two equations be different?  Why are A→X and X→A not the same as A≡X?  They are different and not equivalent because they literally mean different things.  'If, then' equations are only ever false if and only if the the atecedant is true and the consequent is false.  'If and only if' equations are true if and only if both sentences have the same truth value assignment.

Another way to put this is that 'if, then' equations show how something must necessarily follow from another to be true (If it is raining, then it is cloudy out) and 'if and only if' equations show how two things must be both true or false in order for the outcome to be true (Andy will win the lottery if and only if he has the winning ticket, or Andy will not win the lottery if and only if he does not have the winning ticket).

You clearly do not know anything about logical notation, or basic logic.  You are wrong and your original reasoning has been shown to be flawed.  What is it you are getting at?  Will you please answer that question!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I agree 100% with

EXC wrote:

I agree 100% with you on this. The problem is the people that want to maximize their own feelings of goodness, caring, unselfishness or are angry and jealous have hijacked any rational discussion about what works. It's the church of social justice and economics rather than the science of social justice and economics.

So you see liberals as responding 100% emotionally? Not that I completely disagree. (Well, I disagree with the "100%" quantifier, but that's it.) I see the same thing from pretty much everyone on all sides of the social debate -- arguments from emotion, rather than logic. For instance, I would consider the phrase "extreme compassion (with other people's money)" to be an appeal to emotion, rather than a logical or rational argument. By the same token, welfare without return on investment is also an emotional issue. That doesn't mean there isn't rationality and logic in either side of the discussion. It just means that the discussion seems to be clouded with emotion.

Several years ago, my wife pointed out that one of my more conservative friends and I are very similar. And we are very similar. We have different ideas of the mechanics of government. For example, I believe corporations should be heavily regulated, and he believes corporations should be left more-or-less alone. However, our goals are identical. We both want a prosperous society in which very few are destitute. (We both realize the goal of no poverty is unattainable, at least for now.) We both want an accountable, transparent government. We both want to maximize freedoms and defend the ideals of the Constitution.

We just had different ideas on how best to achieve those goals.

Once I realized that Thor and I were after the same things, after I realized that he and I were similar in most of the important ways, it was much easier to have discussions with him. It was no longer "him vs. me." It was, "We're in this together. How do we make this work?"

I know this is way off the topic of the "logic of the bait-and-switch" which started this discussion, and I don't want to hijack that discussion. However, I would like to hear your ideas on how we can arrive at a rational social algebra.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:That's not

Thomathy wrote:

That's not what you've presented.  A→X is not the same as A≡X.  If you're defining this as an 'if and only if' equation, then why do you keep presenting it as A→X. 

Again Thomathy, A→X and X→A are both premises, I presented both. I did not make X→A a conclusion, YOU did, not me, understand?

(If X then A) & (If A then X) is the equivilent of (X if and on if A).

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:(If X then A) & (If A

Quote:
(If X then A) & (If A then X) is the equivilent of (X if and on if A).
This is sometimes true.  In real English sentences it can only be true when the consequent and antedcedant can follow from each other otherwise an error in logic is being made and the particular fallacy is known as affirming the consequent.  Someone could, conceivably, move from affirming the consequent to introducing a biconditional, but this is not a new fallacy, it is just an extension of the poor reasoning involved in affirming the consequent.

Now, I still don't know what the logic you presented is supposed to mean.  In your original post:

Quote:
If A then X. If X then A.
You have presented a conditional followed by the reverse conditional, implying a biconditional.  Correct?

And it has been pointed out that

Quote:
A = I give money to the poor. X = I am compassionate and unselfish.
are not biconditional and further that considering them so would be an extension of affirming the consequent.  Which is fine for you since you are suggesting that there are people who believe the two are biconditional, right?  (Who are these people?)

After that you point out that your premise A is false, but that premise B can take the place of premise A. (Where's the logic that shows how this occurs or is it just arbitrary?)

Quote:
A is not available, is not able to be true. 

B can take the place of A.

And then you restate one of your original premises with B in the stead of A as a conclusion.
Quote:
Therefore, if B then X.
But none of the logic you wrote shows how any of the premises move to that conclusion.  The logic isn't there.

You purport this to be a fallacy and tell us that the logic expounding the fallacy follows.  But that logic isn't an example of any fallacy except affirming the consequent because all you've done is put a few premises together and somehow derive a conclusion and it's not even an example of bait and switch.

Below is what I think you're trying to present in sentential logic:

[(A→X)&(~A&B)]→(B→X)  .... and nothing there is fallacious, but it could contain bad sentences.

In English the above logic would look like this given your proposed premises:

If I give money to the poor, then I am compassionate and unselfish.  But, I don't give money to the poor, but the rich can give money to the poor.  If the rich give money to the poor, then I am compassionate and unselfish.

The only problem there is that the last sentence isn't true; the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent.

You should notice as well that it's difficult to construe that as a bait and switch.

What I want to know is what you meant by the logic you presented, because it doesn't make any sense and I'm still not sure what it is you are getting at.  Who are the people supposedly using bait and switch and can you show an actual example of where you think it was used instead of just a hypothetical (and extremely flawed) example?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."