← Back to archive

Affirming the consequent, evidence and probability

Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.

I just came to realize that most of my day to day conclusions are actually the result of affirming the consequent!


For example, “If my family ate dinner, then the dishes in the sink would be dirty. The dishes in the sink are dirty, therefore my family ate dinner.” This is clearly affirming the consequent, yet it’s also clear that the argument is very reasonable (at least to me.) Sure, there are other possible explanations, including very crazy ones like aliens having done that, but what comes to the mind first seems to be most likely correct one. So… is this still a fallacy anymore? I mean like if it is then there’s a big problem:


 


Take the fossils for example. What comes to the mind first is that there were actual dinosaurs, for in instance, that got fossilized in a certain place. But this is not the only possible explanation right? I could say that there was an ancient unknown civilization that made up the fossils just to mess with us, or some creationists could explain it by saying that Satan did it. How do we determine the correct explanation? If this form doesn’t work “If a dinosaur was fossilized here, then a fossil representing it would be here. A fossil that represents it is here, therefore a dinosaur was fossilized here and therefore dinosaurs existed” then what does? What’s the point of “evidence” then? But if the form I presented is correct, then I have another problem:


 


Theists often accuse skeptics of being too unbelieving and always wanting perfect proof. They say that if they’re looking for reasonable evidence, then there is undoubtedly a lot. But doesn’t this “reasonable evidence” also depend on the form I presented? For example “If God exists, then the world would be amazing and stunning. The world is so, therefore God exists.” But this is literally a fallacy yet if it is then we can’t have any evidence at all!!! And by this, we can also prove pretty much anything. Am I missing something here? Does it have anything to do with probability ? If so how do we determine this?


 


Currently I feel like I can’t make any inference whatsoever so please help and enlighten me.