What fallacy is assuming something is the case because of past events
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
I'm sure this is a simple question. What I am referring to is disbelieving someone on Day 20 because they have lied every day previous to Day 20.
Another example is the boy who cried wolf. The 50th time he cries "Wolf!" nobody believes him.
As a matter of practicality it's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve someone on Day 20 or take the cry of "Wolf!" to be false, as we've established through experience that a person lies, and so we judge probabilities (unconsciously maybe) and choose not to believe them.
However I'm asking from a purely logical perspective. If a witness lies many times, their credibility is severely hurt, but it would technically be a fallacy to say their last testimony was a lie because:
1.The witness has lied ten times to 13 questions.
2.The witness has a tendency to lie.
3.The last statement from the witness is a lie. (invalid conclusion)
What comes to my mind is "hasty generalization". However "hasty generalization" is defined by Wikipedia as:
... a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has
been reached on the basis of just one or just a few instances of that
phenomenon. It is an example of jumping to conclusions.
Faulty generalization (hasty)
Notice it says based on just one or just a few. I think this excludes my examples because the conclusion is not based on just one or few instances, but in some cases many, for example 30 instances.
I agree that it is "jumping to conclusions", but I feel there's a more accurate term for it. I feel there's a term for something like:
- Just because it's happened in the past (even every time) doesn't mean it'll happen now (even though the odds are in favor it happening).
Also, I know this is related to the problem of induction, (You don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow), but that's not a name of a fallacy.
logic fallacies argumentation induction
add a comment |
I'm sure this is a simple question. What I am referring to is disbelieving someone on Day 20 because they have lied every day previous to Day 20.
Another example is the boy who cried wolf. The 50th time he cries "Wolf!" nobody believes him.
As a matter of practicality it's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve someone on Day 20 or take the cry of "Wolf!" to be false, as we've established through experience that a person lies, and so we judge probabilities (unconsciously maybe) and choose not to believe them.
However I'm asking from a purely logical perspective. If a witness lies many times, their credibility is severely hurt, but it would technically be a fallacy to say their last testimony was a lie because:
1.The witness has lied ten times to 13 questions.
2.The witness has a tendency to lie.
3.The last statement from the witness is a lie. (invalid conclusion)
What comes to my mind is "hasty generalization". However "hasty generalization" is defined by Wikipedia as:
... a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has
been reached on the basis of just one or just a few instances of that
phenomenon. It is an example of jumping to conclusions.
Faulty generalization (hasty)
Notice it says based on just one or just a few. I think this excludes my examples because the conclusion is not based on just one or few instances, but in some cases many, for example 30 instances.
I agree that it is "jumping to conclusions", but I feel there's a more accurate term for it. I feel there's a term for something like:
- Just because it's happened in the past (even every time) doesn't mean it'll happen now (even though the odds are in favor it happening).
Also, I know this is related to the problem of induction, (You don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow), but that's not a name of a fallacy.
logic fallacies argumentation induction
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
add a comment |
I'm sure this is a simple question. What I am referring to is disbelieving someone on Day 20 because they have lied every day previous to Day 20.
Another example is the boy who cried wolf. The 50th time he cries "Wolf!" nobody believes him.
As a matter of practicality it's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve someone on Day 20 or take the cry of "Wolf!" to be false, as we've established through experience that a person lies, and so we judge probabilities (unconsciously maybe) and choose not to believe them.
However I'm asking from a purely logical perspective. If a witness lies many times, their credibility is severely hurt, but it would technically be a fallacy to say their last testimony was a lie because:
1.The witness has lied ten times to 13 questions.
2.The witness has a tendency to lie.
3.The last statement from the witness is a lie. (invalid conclusion)
What comes to my mind is "hasty generalization". However "hasty generalization" is defined by Wikipedia as:
... a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has
been reached on the basis of just one or just a few instances of that
phenomenon. It is an example of jumping to conclusions.
Faulty generalization (hasty)
Notice it says based on just one or just a few. I think this excludes my examples because the conclusion is not based on just one or few instances, but in some cases many, for example 30 instances.
I agree that it is "jumping to conclusions", but I feel there's a more accurate term for it. I feel there's a term for something like:
- Just because it's happened in the past (even every time) doesn't mean it'll happen now (even though the odds are in favor it happening).
Also, I know this is related to the problem of induction, (You don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow), but that's not a name of a fallacy.
logic fallacies argumentation induction
I'm sure this is a simple question. What I am referring to is disbelieving someone on Day 20 because they have lied every day previous to Day 20.
Another example is the boy who cried wolf. The 50th time he cries "Wolf!" nobody believes him.
As a matter of practicality it's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve someone on Day 20 or take the cry of "Wolf!" to be false, as we've established through experience that a person lies, and so we judge probabilities (unconsciously maybe) and choose not to believe them.
However I'm asking from a purely logical perspective. If a witness lies many times, their credibility is severely hurt, but it would technically be a fallacy to say their last testimony was a lie because:
1.The witness has lied ten times to 13 questions.
2.The witness has a tendency to lie.
3.The last statement from the witness is a lie. (invalid conclusion)
What comes to my mind is "hasty generalization". However "hasty generalization" is defined by Wikipedia as:
... a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has
been reached on the basis of just one or just a few instances of that
phenomenon. It is an example of jumping to conclusions.
Faulty generalization (hasty)
Notice it says based on just one or just a few. I think this excludes my examples because the conclusion is not based on just one or few instances, but in some cases many, for example 30 instances.
I agree that it is "jumping to conclusions", but I feel there's a more accurate term for it. I feel there's a term for something like:
- Just because it's happened in the past (even every time) doesn't mean it'll happen now (even though the odds are in favor it happening).
Also, I know this is related to the problem of induction, (You don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow), but that's not a name of a fallacy.
logic fallacies argumentation induction
logic fallacies argumentation induction
edited Jan 29 at 7:47
Jishin Noben
902219
902219
asked Jan 28 at 10:26
ZebrafishZebrafish
386110
386110
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
add a comment |
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
This is not a fallacy, just the old problem of induction. A case of hasty generalisation would be to conclude that the witness tends to lie, if you have observed it two times in a row.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
All informal fallacies take their force from their similarity to strong arguments. In this case, if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore we have good reason to disbelieve him on Day 20," that is a perfectly good argument (assuming it isn't suppressing other relevant information).
But if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore what he told us on Day 20 must be a lie" then you are overreaching the evidence. The evidence suggests the boy may be lying, it does not entail it, prove it, or establish it. If there is independent support for the Day 20 statement, yet you insist on it being a lie because you heard it from the boy, you are committing the genetic fallacy, also known as the fallacy of origins.
Genetic Fallacy: A genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
add a comment |
I think I found something that comes close:
Appeal to probability (Wikipedia)
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be
the case (or might possibly be the case).
and
An appeal to probability argues that, because something probably will
happen, it is certain to happen.
The fallacy is an informal fallacy.
P1: X is probable.
P2: (Unstated) Anything which is probable, is certain.
C: X is certain.
The fallaciousness of this line of logic should be apparent from the second, unstated premise (P2), which seems and is blatantly false.
Appeal to Probability - Rational Wiki
I was thinking along the lines of appeal to history or something, not sure if such a term exists. I'd still appreciate any more suggestions.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
In your analysis, there must be some intellectual problem with "disbelieving someone on Day 20 because they have lied every day previous to Day 20." I could split this into these parts:
1) Donald lied to me each day for 19 days straight up to yesterday.
2) Donald said something to me today, and wants me to believe it in spite of the past 19 days of lies (which he acknowledges).
3) The thing Donald said to me is false because all the other things Donald said were false.
Clearly, 3) is an incorrect conclusion: the thing Donald told me today is either true or false quite independently of the history for the past 19 days. In fact, Donald's intention to deceive me could have switched and he may intend to tell the truth to me today, while he intended to lie before. In addition, Donald may well be mistaken: he may be wrong about whatever it is today, thus rendering the truth/falsity of his words today in opposition to his intention today to deceive or to tell the truth.
But let's suppose that someone has thought this instead:
1) Donald lied to me each day for 19 days straight up to yesterday.
2') Donald said something to me today, and wants me to take some action upon it in spite of the 19 days of lies (which he acknowledges).
3') I don't feel safe taking any action upon Donald's words today unless another independent person tells me something about the issue, positive or negative.
Corollary to 3'): I am willing to investigate the thing Donald was telling me today, because it shouldn't be too hard to figure out independently if it's true or not.
There is no fallacy with this reasoning, since it is completely reasonable to take action or not, and to assume the risks of action or inaction, based on your best guess of the trustworthiness of Donald's words. On the chance that "there really is a wolf this time", you can protect yourself by spending the extra effort to validate Donald's claim.
If I already spent the effort to investigate Donald's claims on days 1 through 19 and found them to be false, then the action Donald wants me to take today amounts to "see for yourself", and I don't even have to do that. In old-fashioned legal terms the appropriate action is to "censure" Donald, meaning that as far as I'm concerned, his words no longer cause anything.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
This isn’t an exact fit, but the logic here is similar to the Hot Hand Fallacy. Because something has occurred frequently in the past, it in some way informs likely future events, with the assumption events will continue to transpire in the same way.
It’s not a perfect fit, as the Hot Hand Fallacy specifically concerns streaks of successes making people believe success (specifically) is more likely.
Some times also called the Hot Streak Fallacy.
add a comment |
This isn't quite a fallacy, but what you're talking about is likely caused by Apophenia. From the Wikipedia page:
Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. [...]
Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling. [...]
In statistics, apophenia is an example of a Type I error – the identification of false patterns in data. It may be compared with a so-called false positive in other test situations.
In more casual terms, its the human ability to seek out patterns where there may or may not be any. If a man lies to you three days in a row, you may see a pattern and not trust him on the fourth day when he cries wolf again. This is apohpenia at work.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
Consider the 'Availability Heuristic',
Under the availability heuristic, people tend to heavily weigh their judgments toward more recent information, making new opinions biased toward that latest news.
More broadly, it could be considered confirmation bias
We are primed to see and agree with ideas that fit our preconceptions
Thank you, I think both availability heuristic and confirmation bias are fair descriptions. I've made this point before, but there have been about 15 different suggestions made in both comments and answers, and most seem to be a decent description of what I'm describing. It seems it can be seen in many different ways.
– Zebrafish
Jan 30 at 12:46
add a comment |
You may be looking for the Illusory truth effect.
The illusory truth effect (also known as the validity effect, truth effect or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe information to be correct after repeated exposure
According to Fazio L. et al:
Repetition makes statements easier to process, relative to new statements, leading people to the (sometimes) false conclusion that they are more truthful.
add a comment |
This sounds like Gambler's fallacy, a "reverse" version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Reverse_position
Namely, believing that the coin is more likely to land on one side if there was already a tendency towards that side in the past.
add a comment |
I'll give it a try with probabilities. Most of them guessed out of the blue, so please feel free to correct me if you have data.
I'll tackle the 10 lies out of 13 answers scenario.
I'll assume for now that we know for sure that these 10 are lies (which sounds not that plausible to me - I don't think it's so easy to actually prove a lie and considering that, this sounds extraordinarily patient... But what I'm going to do will mostly hold also with honest mistakes on the side of the witness).
I'll assume a mistakenly false witness statement to happen in roughly 1 % of answers.
This number is somewhat arbitrarily pulled from the range of innocent suspects wrongly identified by eyewitnesses in Mickes, Flowe, Wixted: Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis of Eyewitness Memory:
Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Simultaneous Versus
Sequential Lineup, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 361 – 376, 2012 and the corresponding probability to correctly identify the guilty party around 1 in 5 times.We'll also assume that all those answers and questions are independent of each other, and
- that the witness behaviour can be summarized by a single "probability to lie"
This is obviously a vast oversimplification of what happens in real life. However, I think the scenario is still useful to show how much evidence we have and how much we do not have.
To be continued, have to leave for today
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59900%2fwhat-fallacy-is-assuming-something-is-the-case-because-of-past-events%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is not a fallacy, just the old problem of induction. A case of hasty generalisation would be to conclude that the witness tends to lie, if you have observed it two times in a row.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
This is not a fallacy, just the old problem of induction. A case of hasty generalisation would be to conclude that the witness tends to lie, if you have observed it two times in a row.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
This is not a fallacy, just the old problem of induction. A case of hasty generalisation would be to conclude that the witness tends to lie, if you have observed it two times in a row.
This is not a fallacy, just the old problem of induction. A case of hasty generalisation would be to conclude that the witness tends to lie, if you have observed it two times in a row.
edited Jan 28 at 20:15
answered Jan 28 at 10:39
Jishin NobenJishin Noben
902219
902219
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
All informal fallacies take their force from their similarity to strong arguments. In this case, if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore we have good reason to disbelieve him on Day 20," that is a perfectly good argument (assuming it isn't suppressing other relevant information).
But if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore what he told us on Day 20 must be a lie" then you are overreaching the evidence. The evidence suggests the boy may be lying, it does not entail it, prove it, or establish it. If there is independent support for the Day 20 statement, yet you insist on it being a lie because you heard it from the boy, you are committing the genetic fallacy, also known as the fallacy of origins.
Genetic Fallacy: A genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
add a comment |
All informal fallacies take their force from their similarity to strong arguments. In this case, if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore we have good reason to disbelieve him on Day 20," that is a perfectly good argument (assuming it isn't suppressing other relevant information).
But if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore what he told us on Day 20 must be a lie" then you are overreaching the evidence. The evidence suggests the boy may be lying, it does not entail it, prove it, or establish it. If there is independent support for the Day 20 statement, yet you insist on it being a lie because you heard it from the boy, you are committing the genetic fallacy, also known as the fallacy of origins.
Genetic Fallacy: A genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
add a comment |
All informal fallacies take their force from their similarity to strong arguments. In this case, if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore we have good reason to disbelieve him on Day 20," that is a perfectly good argument (assuming it isn't suppressing other relevant information).
But if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore what he told us on Day 20 must be a lie" then you are overreaching the evidence. The evidence suggests the boy may be lying, it does not entail it, prove it, or establish it. If there is independent support for the Day 20 statement, yet you insist on it being a lie because you heard it from the boy, you are committing the genetic fallacy, also known as the fallacy of origins.
Genetic Fallacy: A genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
All informal fallacies take their force from their similarity to strong arguments. In this case, if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore we have good reason to disbelieve him on Day 20," that is a perfectly good argument (assuming it isn't suppressing other relevant information).
But if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore what he told us on Day 20 must be a lie" then you are overreaching the evidence. The evidence suggests the boy may be lying, it does not entail it, prove it, or establish it. If there is independent support for the Day 20 statement, yet you insist on it being a lie because you heard it from the boy, you are committing the genetic fallacy, also known as the fallacy of origins.
Genetic Fallacy: A genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
edited Jan 28 at 21:15
answered Jan 28 at 19:49
Chris SunamiChris Sunami
20.7k12963
20.7k12963
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17
add a comment |
I think I found something that comes close:
Appeal to probability (Wikipedia)
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be
the case (or might possibly be the case).
and
An appeal to probability argues that, because something probably will
happen, it is certain to happen.
The fallacy is an informal fallacy.
P1: X is probable.
P2: (Unstated) Anything which is probable, is certain.
C: X is certain.
The fallaciousness of this line of logic should be apparent from the second, unstated premise (P2), which seems and is blatantly false.
Appeal to Probability - Rational Wiki
I was thinking along the lines of appeal to history or something, not sure if such a term exists. I'd still appreciate any more suggestions.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
I think I found something that comes close:
Appeal to probability (Wikipedia)
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be
the case (or might possibly be the case).
and
An appeal to probability argues that, because something probably will
happen, it is certain to happen.
The fallacy is an informal fallacy.
P1: X is probable.
P2: (Unstated) Anything which is probable, is certain.
C: X is certain.
The fallaciousness of this line of logic should be apparent from the second, unstated premise (P2), which seems and is blatantly false.
Appeal to Probability - Rational Wiki
I was thinking along the lines of appeal to history or something, not sure if such a term exists. I'd still appreciate any more suggestions.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
I think I found something that comes close:
Appeal to probability (Wikipedia)
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be
the case (or might possibly be the case).
and
An appeal to probability argues that, because something probably will
happen, it is certain to happen.
The fallacy is an informal fallacy.
P1: X is probable.
P2: (Unstated) Anything which is probable, is certain.
C: X is certain.
The fallaciousness of this line of logic should be apparent from the second, unstated premise (P2), which seems and is blatantly false.
Appeal to Probability - Rational Wiki
I was thinking along the lines of appeal to history or something, not sure if such a term exists. I'd still appreciate any more suggestions.
I think I found something that comes close:
Appeal to probability (Wikipedia)
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be
the case (or might possibly be the case).
and
An appeal to probability argues that, because something probably will
happen, it is certain to happen.
The fallacy is an informal fallacy.
P1: X is probable.
P2: (Unstated) Anything which is probable, is certain.
C: X is certain.
The fallaciousness of this line of logic should be apparent from the second, unstated premise (P2), which seems and is blatantly false.
Appeal to Probability - Rational Wiki
I was thinking along the lines of appeal to history or something, not sure if such a term exists. I'd still appreciate any more suggestions.
edited Jan 28 at 12:18
answered Jan 28 at 11:55
ZebrafishZebrafish
386110
386110
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
In your analysis, there must be some intellectual problem with "disbelieving someone on Day 20 because they have lied every day previous to Day 20." I could split this into these parts:
1) Donald lied to me each day for 19 days straight up to yesterday.
2) Donald said something to me today, and wants me to believe it in spite of the past 19 days of lies (which he acknowledges).
3) The thing Donald said to me is false because all the other things Donald said were false.
Clearly, 3) is an incorrect conclusion: the thing Donald told me today is either true or false quite independently of the history for the past 19 days. In fact, Donald's intention to deceive me could have switched and he may intend to tell the truth to me today, while he intended to lie before. In addition, Donald may well be mistaken: he may be wrong about whatever it is today, thus rendering the truth/falsity of his words today in opposition to his intention today to deceive or to tell the truth.
But let's suppose that someone has thought this instead:
1) Donald lied to me each day for 19 days straight up to yesterday.
2') Donald said something to me today, and wants me to take some action upon it in spite of the 19 days of lies (which he acknowledges).
3') I don't feel safe taking any action upon Donald's words today unless another independent person tells me something about the issue, positive or negative.
Corollary to 3'): I am willing to investigate the thing Donald was telling me today, because it shouldn't be too hard to figure out independently if it's true or not.
There is no fallacy with this reasoning, since it is completely reasonable to take action or not, and to assume the risks of action or inaction, based on your best guess of the trustworthiness of Donald's words. On the chance that "there really is a wolf this time", you can protect yourself by spending the extra effort to validate Donald's claim.
If I already spent the effort to investigate Donald's claims on days 1 through 19 and found them to be false, then the action Donald wants me to take today amounts to "see for yourself", and I don't even have to do that. In old-fashioned legal terms the appropriate action is to "censure" Donald, meaning that as far as I'm concerned, his words no longer cause anything.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
In your analysis, there must be some intellectual problem with "disbelieving someone on Day 20 because they have lied every day previous to Day 20." I could split this into these parts:
1) Donald lied to me each day for 19 days straight up to yesterday.
2) Donald said something to me today, and wants me to believe it in spite of the past 19 days of lies (which he acknowledges).
3) The thing Donald said to me is false because all the other things Donald said were false.
Clearly, 3) is an incorrect conclusion: the thing Donald told me today is either true or false quite independently of the history for the past 19 days. In fact, Donald's intention to deceive me could have switched and he may intend to tell the truth to me today, while he intended to lie before. In addition, Donald may well be mistaken: he may be wrong about whatever it is today, thus rendering the truth/falsity of his words today in opposition to his intention today to deceive or to tell the truth.
But let's suppose that someone has thought this instead:
1) Donald lied to me each day for 19 days straight up to yesterday.
2') Donald said something to me today, and wants me to take some action upon it in spite of the 19 days of lies (which he acknowledges).
3') I don't feel safe taking any action upon Donald's words today unless another independent person tells me something about the issue, positive or negative.
Corollary to 3'): I am willing to investigate the thing Donald was telling me today, because it shouldn't be too hard to figure out independently if it's true or not.
There is no fallacy with this reasoning, since it is completely reasonable to take action or not, and to assume the risks of action or inaction, based on your best guess of the trustworthiness of Donald's words. On the chance that "there really is a wolf this time", you can protect yourself by spending the extra effort to validate Donald's claim.
If I already spent the effort to investigate Donald's claims on days 1 through 19 and found them to be false, then the action Donald wants me to take today amounts to "see for yourself", and I don't even have to do that. In old-fashioned legal terms the appropriate action is to "censure" Donald, meaning that as far as I'm concerned, his words no longer cause anything.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
In your analysis, there must be some intellectual problem with "disbelieving someone on Day 20 because they have lied every day previous to Day 20." I could split this into these parts:
1) Donald lied to me each day for 19 days straight up to yesterday.
2) Donald said something to me today, and wants me to believe it in spite of the past 19 days of lies (which he acknowledges).
3) The thing Donald said to me is false because all the other things Donald said were false.
Clearly, 3) is an incorrect conclusion: the thing Donald told me today is either true or false quite independently of the history for the past 19 days. In fact, Donald's intention to deceive me could have switched and he may intend to tell the truth to me today, while he intended to lie before. In addition, Donald may well be mistaken: he may be wrong about whatever it is today, thus rendering the truth/falsity of his words today in opposition to his intention today to deceive or to tell the truth.
But let's suppose that someone has thought this instead:
1) Donald lied to me each day for 19 days straight up to yesterday.
2') Donald said something to me today, and wants me to take some action upon it in spite of the 19 days of lies (which he acknowledges).
3') I don't feel safe taking any action upon Donald's words today unless another independent person tells me something about the issue, positive or negative.
Corollary to 3'): I am willing to investigate the thing Donald was telling me today, because it shouldn't be too hard to figure out independently if it's true or not.
There is no fallacy with this reasoning, since it is completely reasonable to take action or not, and to assume the risks of action or inaction, based on your best guess of the trustworthiness of Donald's words. On the chance that "there really is a wolf this time", you can protect yourself by spending the extra effort to validate Donald's claim.
If I already spent the effort to investigate Donald's claims on days 1 through 19 and found them to be false, then the action Donald wants me to take today amounts to "see for yourself", and I don't even have to do that. In old-fashioned legal terms the appropriate action is to "censure" Donald, meaning that as far as I'm concerned, his words no longer cause anything.
In your analysis, there must be some intellectual problem with "disbelieving someone on Day 20 because they have lied every day previous to Day 20." I could split this into these parts:
1) Donald lied to me each day for 19 days straight up to yesterday.
2) Donald said something to me today, and wants me to believe it in spite of the past 19 days of lies (which he acknowledges).
3) The thing Donald said to me is false because all the other things Donald said were false.
Clearly, 3) is an incorrect conclusion: the thing Donald told me today is either true or false quite independently of the history for the past 19 days. In fact, Donald's intention to deceive me could have switched and he may intend to tell the truth to me today, while he intended to lie before. In addition, Donald may well be mistaken: he may be wrong about whatever it is today, thus rendering the truth/falsity of his words today in opposition to his intention today to deceive or to tell the truth.
But let's suppose that someone has thought this instead:
1) Donald lied to me each day for 19 days straight up to yesterday.
2') Donald said something to me today, and wants me to take some action upon it in spite of the 19 days of lies (which he acknowledges).
3') I don't feel safe taking any action upon Donald's words today unless another independent person tells me something about the issue, positive or negative.
Corollary to 3'): I am willing to investigate the thing Donald was telling me today, because it shouldn't be too hard to figure out independently if it's true or not.
There is no fallacy with this reasoning, since it is completely reasonable to take action or not, and to assume the risks of action or inaction, based on your best guess of the trustworthiness of Donald's words. On the chance that "there really is a wolf this time", you can protect yourself by spending the extra effort to validate Donald's claim.
If I already spent the effort to investigate Donald's claims on days 1 through 19 and found them to be false, then the action Donald wants me to take today amounts to "see for yourself", and I don't even have to do that. In old-fashioned legal terms the appropriate action is to "censure" Donald, meaning that as far as I'm concerned, his words no longer cause anything.
answered Jan 28 at 17:23
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
3,775224
3,775224
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
This isn’t an exact fit, but the logic here is similar to the Hot Hand Fallacy. Because something has occurred frequently in the past, it in some way informs likely future events, with the assumption events will continue to transpire in the same way.
It’s not a perfect fit, as the Hot Hand Fallacy specifically concerns streaks of successes making people believe success (specifically) is more likely.
Some times also called the Hot Streak Fallacy.
add a comment |
This isn’t an exact fit, but the logic here is similar to the Hot Hand Fallacy. Because something has occurred frequently in the past, it in some way informs likely future events, with the assumption events will continue to transpire in the same way.
It’s not a perfect fit, as the Hot Hand Fallacy specifically concerns streaks of successes making people believe success (specifically) is more likely.
Some times also called the Hot Streak Fallacy.
add a comment |
This isn’t an exact fit, but the logic here is similar to the Hot Hand Fallacy. Because something has occurred frequently in the past, it in some way informs likely future events, with the assumption events will continue to transpire in the same way.
It’s not a perfect fit, as the Hot Hand Fallacy specifically concerns streaks of successes making people believe success (specifically) is more likely.
Some times also called the Hot Streak Fallacy.
This isn’t an exact fit, but the logic here is similar to the Hot Hand Fallacy. Because something has occurred frequently in the past, it in some way informs likely future events, with the assumption events will continue to transpire in the same way.
It’s not a perfect fit, as the Hot Hand Fallacy specifically concerns streaks of successes making people believe success (specifically) is more likely.
Some times also called the Hot Streak Fallacy.
answered Jan 28 at 20:22
Joe HealeyJoe Healey
1412
1412
add a comment |
add a comment |
This isn't quite a fallacy, but what you're talking about is likely caused by Apophenia. From the Wikipedia page:
Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. [...]
Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling. [...]
In statistics, apophenia is an example of a Type I error – the identification of false patterns in data. It may be compared with a so-called false positive in other test situations.
In more casual terms, its the human ability to seek out patterns where there may or may not be any. If a man lies to you three days in a row, you may see a pattern and not trust him on the fourth day when he cries wolf again. This is apohpenia at work.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
This isn't quite a fallacy, but what you're talking about is likely caused by Apophenia. From the Wikipedia page:
Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. [...]
Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling. [...]
In statistics, apophenia is an example of a Type I error – the identification of false patterns in data. It may be compared with a so-called false positive in other test situations.
In more casual terms, its the human ability to seek out patterns where there may or may not be any. If a man lies to you three days in a row, you may see a pattern and not trust him on the fourth day when he cries wolf again. This is apohpenia at work.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
This isn't quite a fallacy, but what you're talking about is likely caused by Apophenia. From the Wikipedia page:
Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. [...]
Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling. [...]
In statistics, apophenia is an example of a Type I error – the identification of false patterns in data. It may be compared with a so-called false positive in other test situations.
In more casual terms, its the human ability to seek out patterns where there may or may not be any. If a man lies to you three days in a row, you may see a pattern and not trust him on the fourth day when he cries wolf again. This is apohpenia at work.
This isn't quite a fallacy, but what you're talking about is likely caused by Apophenia. From the Wikipedia page:
Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. [...]
Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling. [...]
In statistics, apophenia is an example of a Type I error – the identification of false patterns in data. It may be compared with a so-called false positive in other test situations.
In more casual terms, its the human ability to seek out patterns where there may or may not be any. If a man lies to you three days in a row, you may see a pattern and not trust him on the fourth day when he cries wolf again. This is apohpenia at work.
answered Jan 28 at 16:23
scohe001scohe001
1292
1292
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:18
add a comment |
Consider the 'Availability Heuristic',
Under the availability heuristic, people tend to heavily weigh their judgments toward more recent information, making new opinions biased toward that latest news.
More broadly, it could be considered confirmation bias
We are primed to see and agree with ideas that fit our preconceptions
Thank you, I think both availability heuristic and confirmation bias are fair descriptions. I've made this point before, but there have been about 15 different suggestions made in both comments and answers, and most seem to be a decent description of what I'm describing. It seems it can be seen in many different ways.
– Zebrafish
Jan 30 at 12:46
add a comment |
Consider the 'Availability Heuristic',
Under the availability heuristic, people tend to heavily weigh their judgments toward more recent information, making new opinions biased toward that latest news.
More broadly, it could be considered confirmation bias
We are primed to see and agree with ideas that fit our preconceptions
Thank you, I think both availability heuristic and confirmation bias are fair descriptions. I've made this point before, but there have been about 15 different suggestions made in both comments and answers, and most seem to be a decent description of what I'm describing. It seems it can be seen in many different ways.
– Zebrafish
Jan 30 at 12:46
add a comment |
Consider the 'Availability Heuristic',
Under the availability heuristic, people tend to heavily weigh their judgments toward more recent information, making new opinions biased toward that latest news.
More broadly, it could be considered confirmation bias
We are primed to see and agree with ideas that fit our preconceptions
Consider the 'Availability Heuristic',
Under the availability heuristic, people tend to heavily weigh their judgments toward more recent information, making new opinions biased toward that latest news.
More broadly, it could be considered confirmation bias
We are primed to see and agree with ideas that fit our preconceptions
answered Jan 30 at 11:59
rolingerrolinger
1211
1211
Thank you, I think both availability heuristic and confirmation bias are fair descriptions. I've made this point before, but there have been about 15 different suggestions made in both comments and answers, and most seem to be a decent description of what I'm describing. It seems it can be seen in many different ways.
– Zebrafish
Jan 30 at 12:46
add a comment |
Thank you, I think both availability heuristic and confirmation bias are fair descriptions. I've made this point before, but there have been about 15 different suggestions made in both comments and answers, and most seem to be a decent description of what I'm describing. It seems it can be seen in many different ways.
– Zebrafish
Jan 30 at 12:46
Thank you, I think both availability heuristic and confirmation bias are fair descriptions. I've made this point before, but there have been about 15 different suggestions made in both comments and answers, and most seem to be a decent description of what I'm describing. It seems it can be seen in many different ways.
– Zebrafish
Jan 30 at 12:46
Thank you, I think both availability heuristic and confirmation bias are fair descriptions. I've made this point before, but there have been about 15 different suggestions made in both comments and answers, and most seem to be a decent description of what I'm describing. It seems it can be seen in many different ways.
– Zebrafish
Jan 30 at 12:46
add a comment |
You may be looking for the Illusory truth effect.
The illusory truth effect (also known as the validity effect, truth effect or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe information to be correct after repeated exposure
According to Fazio L. et al:
Repetition makes statements easier to process, relative to new statements, leading people to the (sometimes) false conclusion that they are more truthful.
add a comment |
You may be looking for the Illusory truth effect.
The illusory truth effect (also known as the validity effect, truth effect or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe information to be correct after repeated exposure
According to Fazio L. et al:
Repetition makes statements easier to process, relative to new statements, leading people to the (sometimes) false conclusion that they are more truthful.
add a comment |
You may be looking for the Illusory truth effect.
The illusory truth effect (also known as the validity effect, truth effect or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe information to be correct after repeated exposure
According to Fazio L. et al:
Repetition makes statements easier to process, relative to new statements, leading people to the (sometimes) false conclusion that they are more truthful.
You may be looking for the Illusory truth effect.
The illusory truth effect (also known as the validity effect, truth effect or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe information to be correct after repeated exposure
According to Fazio L. et al:
Repetition makes statements easier to process, relative to new statements, leading people to the (sometimes) false conclusion that they are more truthful.
answered Jan 31 at 11:08
ErawEraw
211
211
add a comment |
add a comment |
This sounds like Gambler's fallacy, a "reverse" version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Reverse_position
Namely, believing that the coin is more likely to land on one side if there was already a tendency towards that side in the past.
add a comment |
This sounds like Gambler's fallacy, a "reverse" version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Reverse_position
Namely, believing that the coin is more likely to land on one side if there was already a tendency towards that side in the past.
add a comment |
This sounds like Gambler's fallacy, a "reverse" version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Reverse_position
Namely, believing that the coin is more likely to land on one side if there was already a tendency towards that side in the past.
This sounds like Gambler's fallacy, a "reverse" version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Reverse_position
Namely, believing that the coin is more likely to land on one side if there was already a tendency towards that side in the past.
answered Jan 30 at 8:55
stackzebrastackzebra
1111
1111
add a comment |
add a comment |
I'll give it a try with probabilities. Most of them guessed out of the blue, so please feel free to correct me if you have data.
I'll tackle the 10 lies out of 13 answers scenario.
I'll assume for now that we know for sure that these 10 are lies (which sounds not that plausible to me - I don't think it's so easy to actually prove a lie and considering that, this sounds extraordinarily patient... But what I'm going to do will mostly hold also with honest mistakes on the side of the witness).
I'll assume a mistakenly false witness statement to happen in roughly 1 % of answers.
This number is somewhat arbitrarily pulled from the range of innocent suspects wrongly identified by eyewitnesses in Mickes, Flowe, Wixted: Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis of Eyewitness Memory:
Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Simultaneous Versus
Sequential Lineup, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 361 – 376, 2012 and the corresponding probability to correctly identify the guilty party around 1 in 5 times.We'll also assume that all those answers and questions are independent of each other, and
- that the witness behaviour can be summarized by a single "probability to lie"
This is obviously a vast oversimplification of what happens in real life. However, I think the scenario is still useful to show how much evidence we have and how much we do not have.
To be continued, have to leave for today
add a comment |
I'll give it a try with probabilities. Most of them guessed out of the blue, so please feel free to correct me if you have data.
I'll tackle the 10 lies out of 13 answers scenario.
I'll assume for now that we know for sure that these 10 are lies (which sounds not that plausible to me - I don't think it's so easy to actually prove a lie and considering that, this sounds extraordinarily patient... But what I'm going to do will mostly hold also with honest mistakes on the side of the witness).
I'll assume a mistakenly false witness statement to happen in roughly 1 % of answers.
This number is somewhat arbitrarily pulled from the range of innocent suspects wrongly identified by eyewitnesses in Mickes, Flowe, Wixted: Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis of Eyewitness Memory:
Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Simultaneous Versus
Sequential Lineup, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 361 – 376, 2012 and the corresponding probability to correctly identify the guilty party around 1 in 5 times.We'll also assume that all those answers and questions are independent of each other, and
- that the witness behaviour can be summarized by a single "probability to lie"
This is obviously a vast oversimplification of what happens in real life. However, I think the scenario is still useful to show how much evidence we have and how much we do not have.
To be continued, have to leave for today
add a comment |
I'll give it a try with probabilities. Most of them guessed out of the blue, so please feel free to correct me if you have data.
I'll tackle the 10 lies out of 13 answers scenario.
I'll assume for now that we know for sure that these 10 are lies (which sounds not that plausible to me - I don't think it's so easy to actually prove a lie and considering that, this sounds extraordinarily patient... But what I'm going to do will mostly hold also with honest mistakes on the side of the witness).
I'll assume a mistakenly false witness statement to happen in roughly 1 % of answers.
This number is somewhat arbitrarily pulled from the range of innocent suspects wrongly identified by eyewitnesses in Mickes, Flowe, Wixted: Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis of Eyewitness Memory:
Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Simultaneous Versus
Sequential Lineup, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 361 – 376, 2012 and the corresponding probability to correctly identify the guilty party around 1 in 5 times.We'll also assume that all those answers and questions are independent of each other, and
- that the witness behaviour can be summarized by a single "probability to lie"
This is obviously a vast oversimplification of what happens in real life. However, I think the scenario is still useful to show how much evidence we have and how much we do not have.
To be continued, have to leave for today
I'll give it a try with probabilities. Most of them guessed out of the blue, so please feel free to correct me if you have data.
I'll tackle the 10 lies out of 13 answers scenario.
I'll assume for now that we know for sure that these 10 are lies (which sounds not that plausible to me - I don't think it's so easy to actually prove a lie and considering that, this sounds extraordinarily patient... But what I'm going to do will mostly hold also with honest mistakes on the side of the witness).
I'll assume a mistakenly false witness statement to happen in roughly 1 % of answers.
This number is somewhat arbitrarily pulled from the range of innocent suspects wrongly identified by eyewitnesses in Mickes, Flowe, Wixted: Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis of Eyewitness Memory:
Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Simultaneous Versus
Sequential Lineup, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 361 – 376, 2012 and the corresponding probability to correctly identify the guilty party around 1 in 5 times.We'll also assume that all those answers and questions are independent of each other, and
- that the witness behaviour can be summarized by a single "probability to lie"
This is obviously a vast oversimplification of what happens in real life. However, I think the scenario is still useful to show how much evidence we have and how much we do not have.
To be continued, have to leave for today
answered Jan 28 at 20:21
cbeleitescbeleites
1374
1374
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59900%2fwhat-fallacy-is-assuming-something-is-the-case-because-of-past-events%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
Jan 31 at 10:17