
	Where results make sense

Topic: Denying the antecedent

In the News (Tue 2 Dec 08)

Crimson Tide

Tommy Tuberville

Bill Clinton

Wayne Rooney

Vilasrao Deshmukh

Wake Forest

Grand Slam

Oklahoma State

Adelaide Oval

Civil War

	Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Denying the antecedent (also known as vacuous implication) is a type of logical fallacy.
		Suppose in an argument one were to deny the "if" part of a conditional (the antecedent) first, and conclude with the denial of "then" part (the consequent).
		Denying the antecedent is valid if the first premise asserts "if and only if" rather than "if", such that I not only always close my eyes when I'm asleep, but I also only close my eyes when I'm asleep (not when I'm awake).
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Denying_the_antecedent (237 words)

	Logical Fallacy: Denying a Conjunct
		So, if we know that one of the conjuncts is true, we may validly infer that the other is false (by Conjunctive Argument).
		However, Denying a Conjunct is likely to seem more plausible when we have independent reasons for thinking that at least one of the two conjuncts is true.
		So, when it reasonable to suppose that the corresponding premiss has been suppressed, the argument will be a valid enthymeme, rather than fallacious.
	www.fallacyfiles.org /denyconj.html (168 words)

	Evaluating Logical Arguments (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		There must be a proper relationship between the antecedent and the consequent for the argument to be sound.
		The denial of the antecedent does not prove the consequent is false.
		The second reason is because Jesus would be guilty of the fallacy of "denying the antecedent" in Mark 16:16.
	www.letusreason.com /archives/logic/logic011598.htm (780 words)

	Conditional Reasoning
		You can affirm or deny either the antecedent or consequent, which may lead to error.
		Denying the consequent means going backwards, saying 'If B is false, then A must also be false.' Thus if you say 'If it is raining, I will get wet', then the trap is to assume that if I am not getting wet then it is not raining.
		Denying the antecedent is making assumptions about what will happen if A is false.
	changingminds.org /explanations/decision/conditional_reasoning.htm (415 words)

	Reasoning
		Denying the antecedent p -> q; not p, therefore not q
		If subjects are presented with a modified version of the Wason card task that makes it more concrete, they perform much better than with the abstract reasoning version.
		Furthermore, the reason subjects are inclined to use denying the antecedent is because in many cases that works, as in a rebate for a purchase.
	www.andrew.cmu.edu /course/85-211b/Reasoning.html (413 words)

	Propositional Syllogisms (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Here the antecedent still follows the "if" and so it can easily be put into standard form by moving the "if" together with the antecedent to the beginning of the statement and adding "then" before the consequent.
		The antecedent in the conclusion must be an antecedent in its premise, and so also the consequent of the conclusion must be a consequent in its premise.
		A conjunctive syllogism consists of the denial of a conjunction for the first premise and a premise which either affirms or denies a conjunct.
	sask.usask.ca /~wiebeb/Propositional.html (1333 words)

	[No title]
		The first clause (i.e., the clause that follows the ‘if’) is known as the antecedent of the conditional; the second clause (i.e., the clause that follows the ‘then’) is known as the consequent.
		In general, we will say that the antecedent of a conditional is a sufficient condition for its consequent.
		In general, the consequent of a conditional is a necessary condition for its antecedent.
	www.uwyo.edu /moffett/courses/phil3000/logic3.doc (569 words)

	Fallacies [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		A conditional is an if-then statement; the if-part is the antecedent, and the then-part is the consequent.
		This invalid argument is an instance of denying the antecedent.
		The consequent is the then-part, and the antecedent is the if-part.
	www.iep.utm.edu /f/fallacies.htm (13501 words)

	purevolume™ \| Denying the Antecedent
		Denying the Antecedent hasn't posted a blog yet.
		Denying the Antecedent hasn't posted any shows yet.
		All songs, lyrics and pictures © 2005 Denying the Antecedent.
	www.purevolume.com /denyingtheantecedent (58 words)

	Lecture 3: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
		The fallacy of affirming the consequent is exactly what the name says: it is an argument in which one asserts a conditional, asserts the consequent of the conditional, and then concludes that the antecedent of the conditional is true.
		A related fallacy, the fallacy of denying the antecedent, occurs when one asserts a conditional, denies the antecedent of the conditional, and concludes by denying the consequent.
		Like the fallacy of affirming the consequent, the fallacy of denying the antecedent confuses necessary and sufficient conditions.
	www.uwyo.edu /moffett/courses/phil3000/logic3.html (964 words)

	AR.net >> Discussion Forum >> RE: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' Commercial Gets Shot Down By ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		You decided to make an argument that denied the antecedent right before admonishing Emma for doing it (though I'm not sure where she does just that).
		Denying the antecedent is If (if P, then Q), then (if not P, then not Q).
		denies the premise (that mistreatment of living animals is more important than whether or not their corpses are consumed) but accepts the conclusion (that it is some feature of the animal itself that warrants moral consideration).
	www.animalrights.net /44600 (747 words)

	Glossary for Philosophy 17
		Or whenever you have the antecedent you have the consequent.
		All substitution instances of Denying the Antecedent are invalid.
		An argument is in modus tollens form if one of its premises is a conditional, the other premise is the negation or denial of the consequent of that conditional, and the conclusion is the negation of the antecedent of that conditional.
	instruct.westvalley.edu /lafave/glossary.html (12850 words)

	Denying The Antecedent (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Denying The Antecedent is equivalent to the fallacy of Affirming The Consequent, as the above argument can be rewritten:
		This fallacy is commonly employed by lawyers to claim that the absence of some particular evidence proves their client's innocence.
		The phrase 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is an informal expression of the idea that Denying The Antecedent is a fallacy, but the truth is more complex.
	www.safalra.com /philosophy/fallacies/antecedent (255 words)

	Cognition - Lecture 6, page 3 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Another syllogism that leads to a faulty conclusion involves denying the antecedent.
		Here is a case of denying the antecedent with concrete premises and conclusion.
		Here and below are two more cases of denying the antecedent, both with concrete premises and conclusions.
	www.science.mcmaster.ca /Psychology/psych1a6/1a3/Cognition/lec6-3.htm (165 words)

	Deductive Validity (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Modus Tollens: A Hypothetical Syllogism that reaches it conclusion by denying the consequent of a conditional statement: If X, then Y. Not Y. Therefore not X. It is deductively valid.
		Denying the Antecedent: A Hypothetical Syllogism that reaches it conclusion by denying the antecedent of a conditional statement: If X, then Y. Not x.
		Disjunctive Syllogism: A syllogism that reaches its conclusion by denying the component of a disjunctive statement: X or Y. Not X. Therefore Y.
	www.santarosa.edu /~mdonovan/ct/lessons/tutorial/validity/review2.html (183 words)

	Suicide
		While illustrating a Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent) and the fallacy of "Denying the Antecedent," Sarfati attempts an analogous counter-example of Mark 16:16.
		But since the antecedent is conjunctive (containing two terms), whatever relation the first term has with the consequent term also applies to the second.
		To deny one term of a conjunctive antecedent is to deny both since whatever relation one term has to the consequent also applies to the other term.
	members.aol.com /benaiah/BWPD/suicide.htm (2951 words)

	Answers to a Claim of Errancy of the Scriptures
		Many of the arguments made for claims of errancy in the Scriptures are of two different forms, the first one being if p then q, not p, therefore not q.
		The argument contains the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
		He is guilty of the fallacies of begging the question and denying the antecedent.
	www.infidels.org /library/magazines/tsr/1995/3/3answ95.html (1400 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		the antecedent of that conditional the consequent the negation of the antecedent the negation of the consequent
		the first premise is a conditional and the second premise says that the antecedent of the conditional is true.
		the first premise is a conditional and the second premise says that the antecedent of the conditional is false.
	www.ou.edu /ouphil/faculty/hawthorne/condargs.html (657 words)

	ipedia.com: Affirming the consequent Article (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy in the form of a hypothetical proposition.
		A hypothetical proposition is comprised of an antecedent and a consequent, respectively.
		A hypothetical proposition states that the truth-hood of the antecedent entails the truth-hood of the consequent.
	www.ipedia.com /affirming_the_consequent.html (238 words)

	DenAnt (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Denying the antecedent - invalid form of argumentation.
		than the one described in the antecedent that are sufficient to cause the consequence.
		Elaine may have been in a water balloon fight or she may have been playing in the lawn sprinklers
	webpages.charter.net /Phil106/DenAnt.html (50 words)

	HypothProp
		Mixed Conditionals: In this next conditional the antecedent is in the past and the consequent is in the
		the antecedent of the major premise then the minor premise is saying the same thing as the major
		If the minor premise is denying the antecedent of the major premise then the minor premise is
	webpages.charter.net /Phil106/HypothProp.html (708 words)

	Logical Fallacies
		As a "branch" of philosophy, logic is often broken down into many subsets: for instance, modal logic, many-valued logic, modern logic, symbolic logic, formal and informal logic, deductive and inductive logic.
		The other form is asking a question whose answer would necessitate acceptance of a presupposition, one which the answerer might separately deny.
		The famous example of this second form is asking, "Do you still beat your wife?" Answering "no" legitimates the question and does nothing to contradict the presupposition that the husband once did beat his wife.
	www.philosophicalsociety.com /Logical%20Fallacies.htm (2628 words)

	DD (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-21)
		Destructive Dilemma (D.D.)is like a "double" modus tollens in which the first premiss is the conjunction of two implications and the second premiss is a disjunction of the denials of the consequents of the two implications in the first premiss.
		This allows you to infer the disjunction of the denials two antecedents of the two implications in the first premiss.
		from consequent to antecedent, when denying in a destructive dilemma.
	www.loyno.edu /~folse/DD.html (131 words)

	Answers to Exercise 5/6 PHIL 1010-Thinking
		While there is nothing wrong with the simple act of denying any statement (antecedent, consequent, or what have you), the question is about which of the choices does not name a common fallacy.
		The two common logical fallacies are ``Affirming the consequent'' and ``Denying the antecedent''.
		The fallacy (not the act) of denying the antecedent is to conclude that because the antecedent is false, the consequent must also be false.
	www.csse.monash.edu.au /~ctwardy/PHIL1010/answers_ex6/answers_ex6.html (3060 words)

	Denying the Antecedent
		Disciplines > Argument > Fallacies > Denying the Antecedent
		Then show that the cause does not happen (then assume that this proves the antecedent is also false).
		In an 'If A then B' statement, A is the antecedent and B is the consequent.
	changingminds.org /disciplines/argument/fallacies/denying_antecedent.htm (205 words)

	Deductive Patterns
		Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, or Denying theAntecedent ?
		Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Denying the Antecedent or Affirming the Consequent?
		We know that Claire is a cat because she is carnivorous, and if she is a cat, she is carnivorous.
	www.unlv.edu /Faculty/coombs/patt.htm (463 words)

	Antecedent - OneLook Dictionary Search
		Antecedent : Online Plain Text English Dictionary [home, info]
		Phrases that include Antecedent: plasma thromboplastin antecedent, denying the antecedent, last antecedent rule, affirming the antecedent, antecedent debt, more...
		Words similar to Antecedent: ancestor, antecedently, ascendant, ascendent, forerunner, preceding, previous, more...
	www.onelook.com /?w=Antecedent&ls=a (328 words)

	If-Then Arguments
		Discussion : Not exactly affirming the antecedent since "BC is human" is not the antecedent of the "if...
		But he's also a partisan of the "punctuated equilibrium" theory which denies graduality; so his judgment on this might be biased.
		This is especially worrisome given the vagary of "shows a smooth progression": two researchers might look at the same fossils and one see a smooth progression and the other none.
	members.aol.com /wutsamada2/crithink/wilson11.htm (4146 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)