5 ms·
So, X contributed to Y, therefore Y could not exist without X. Is there a name for that kind of logical fallacy?
by ataggart 12y ago
So, X contributed to Y, therefore Y could not exist without X. Is there a name for that kind of logical fallacy?
- wyager 12y agoPerhaps a form of the fallacy of composition? P(X) = "X exists due to the government" S = "Scientific developments" Fallacious statement: ∃x ∈ S (P(x)) ⇒ ∀x ∈ S (P(x))
- logfromblammo 12y agoPost hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).
- mpyne 12y agoThat's not quite right either, because in this case there was some sort of casual relation, not merely a barrier in time.
- logfromblammo 12y agoThere's a little bit of Complex Cause in there, too.
- scotty79 12y agoStating that this reasoning is always a falacy is in itself "coulda woulda shoulda" "falacy". Strict reasoning is hard.
- mattmcegg 12y agoattribution bias is close.
- Kroem3r 12y agoYa, good call. It is a super interesting fallacy that people interested in disassembling dysfunctional status quo models should be good at calling-out. Something like a "post hoc rationalization". For me, another use case is 'all the fantastic things that have been invented because of war'.