Nuanced deception#, Validity is denying consequent, not antecedent#, fallacy#.

Nuanced deception#, Validity is denying consequent, not antecedent#, fallacy#.

By Dr. Sohail Ansari

Conceived and worded by DR Sohail Ansari (originality of concepts and originality of words).

He believes that there can never be a zero scope for improvement and appreciates criticism if it is not for the sake of criticism.

·       To be devil’s perfect apprentice, one must create a sin that has a life of its own.

Nuanced deception  

·        In deceptive reasoning, premise that indicates inductive probability is presented as entailing conclusion so that suggested truth is ensured; for example, 90% of politicians are corrupt; A is a corrupt politician, therefore, A is probably corrupt. However, the probability that A is corrupt is 90.         

Validity is denying the consequent not denying the antecedent.

§  If I am the president of the USA, then I can veto congress. I am not the president; therefore, I cannot veto congress.

§  If I can veto congress, then I am president of the USA. I cannot veto; therefore, I am not president.

Consequence of not vetoing is the proof of not president because if one does not veto, he remains president anyhow.           

Fallacy    

·       More old people visit doctors than young people. More old people die than young people; therefore, if as many old people as young people visit doctors so as many old people as young people will die.

·       More old people visit doctors, more they die; hence, we conclude that if less old people visit, less old people will die.

·        More old people than young people visit doctors, but young people visit doctor more, we know old people die more, so if lesser old people than young people start visiting doctors more, more young people than old people will die.

·       More young than old go to war; therefore, more young than old die more in a war.