Denying the Antecedent Tales

by phil on Tuesday Jan 6, 2004 6:22 PM
Me Me Me, logical fallacies

Denying the Antecedent

This is the logical fallacy when after you assert that A implies B, you then assert that Not A implies Not B.

The latter does not follow from the former. For example, "I live in Palo Alto, therefore I must be in California" does not imply "I don't live in Palo Alto, therefore I don't live in California"

Then I asked myself to find a more personal example.

So I decided to dig through my personal Philosophistry and said to myself, "I bet I could find an example in like 5 minutes" and lo and behold, I found one in the first text file that I opened...

I said

1) Don't do anything you don't love, cuz if you love it, then you're good to go

this can be paraphrased as ( "If you love something do it" implies "If you don't love something don't do it" ) which is illogical.

Amazing, this logical fallacies stuff.

So much of what I do is based on my "rational" analysis, and now that I'm learning how many logical fallacies I've committed, I'm having to revise so many policies and principles of my living.


Applejack said on January 8, 2004 2:37 AM:

Yeah, that's a money logical fallacy. I used it to call some idiot out for trying to imply God exists because life exists, a few hours after reading your post. Another pseudo intellectual using math like a child with a loaded gun.

Philip Dhingra said on January 8, 2004 7:36 AM:


Mr.Grozny said on April 7, 2004 6:22 PM:

Add di du du du i applejack loves dildo- dildo's alldaydee doo eu

applejacksboyfriend said on April 7, 2004 6:24 PM:

Dont make fun of my boyy applejack.

Creative Commons License