Taxonomy – Where am I?

Affirming The Consequent

classification : informal – Non-sequitur

Affirming the consequent argues backward from the truth of a conclusion to the truth of one of the propositions like this.

## Foundations

Together with its similar Sub fallacy, Denying the Antecedent, instances of Affirming the Consequent are most likely to seem valid when we assume the converse of the argument’s conditional premise.

**Note:*** * On Sophistical Refutations – Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge

Taxonomy – Where am I?

Bulverism

classification : informal – Non-sequitur

Rather than proving that an argument is wrong, a person instead assumes it is wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held that argument..

## Foundations

The term “Bulverism” was coined by C. S. Lewis. Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay of the same name, later included in the anthology God in the Dock. It is very similar to Antony Flew’s “Subject/Motive Shift”.

Taxonomy – Where am I?

Regression Fallacy

classification : informal – non causa pro causa

*With this, therefore because of this*.

It ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations.

## Foundations

The Regression Fallacy is the result of a statistical phenomenon known as “regression to the mean”. The “mean” refers to the arithmetical average of some variable in a population, that is, the “mean” is what we usually mean by “average”. “Regression” refers to the value of the variable tending to move closer to the mean, away from extreme values. So, “regression to the mean” refers to the tendency of a variable characteristic in a population to move away from the extreme values towards the average value.

## Examples

The frequency of accidents on a road fell after a speed camera was installed. Therefore, the speed camera has improved road safety.

Taxonomy – Where am I?

Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

classification : informal – non causa pro causa

*With this, therefore because of this*.

Committed when one jumps to a conclusion about causation based on a correlation between two events, or types of event, which occur simultaneously.

## Foundations

The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It’s a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.

## Examples

Changing lanes in my car causes the rest of the traffic to speed up or slow down.

## Other Names

Correlation does not imply causation

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (coincidental correlation)

Spurious relationship

Causality

Chain reaction

Domino effect