I have trouble understanding this fallacy: “If A, then B. Therefore if not-B, then not-A.”Why do...
Why did Ylvis use "go" instead of "say" in phrases like "Dog goes 'woof'"?
Including proofs of known theorems in master's thesis
How bad is a Computer Science course that doesn't teach Design Patterns?
Visit to Paris in layover time, which visa?
Is practicing on a digital piano harmful to an experienced piano player?
If I tried and failed to start my own business, how do I apply for a job without job experience?
Was Opportunity's last message to Earth "My battery is low and it's getting dark"?
Why don't you get burned by the wood benches in a sauna?
Do we still track damage on indestructible creatures?
How can I deduce the power of a capacitor from its datasheet?
Maybe pigeonhole problem?
Is the percentage symbol a constant?
Can I legally make a website about boycotting a certain company?
How can I handle players killing my NPC outside of combat?
Was there a pre-determined arrangment for division of Germany in case it surrendered before any Soviet forces entered its territory?
Why is Shelob considered evil?
In a post-apocalypse world, with no power and few survivors, would Satnav still work?
Why "rm -r" is unable to delete this folder?
Distribution coeffecient without concentrations
How can I differentiate duration vs starting time
Performance and power usage for Raspberry Pi in the Stratosphere
Probability X1 ≥ X2
Why does a single AND gate need 60 transistors?
How unreachable are Jupiter's moons from Mars with the technology developed for going to Mars?
I have trouble understanding this fallacy: “If A, then B. Therefore if not-B, then not-A.”
Why do Conditional Semantics matter?What kind of conditional does Nozick use in his theory of knowledge?Are all sufficient conditions necessary?If G is absent whenever F is absent, then F is a sufficient condition for GIf F is a sufficient condition for G, is lacking G a sufficient condition for lacking F?For preventing something, why do we usually search for the Necessary and not the Sufficient Conditions?Is there a logical system that accounts for cause and effect relationship?What is the difference between Conditional and Logical consequence in everyday language?What is the name of this fallacy? (not A imples the value of B is unknown, therefore A)What fallacy accepts P and P → Q but rejects Q (denies modus ponens)?
About "If A, then B. Therefore, if not-B, then not-A":
From what I understand the conclusion is wrong, because it is not said that A is a sufficient condition for B, (and there may be other conditions required for B, so if they are not present B won't be the case, even if A is the case.).
But I have trouble finding a real life example to this and I'm not sure if it is the consept that I don't understand or it is just the way we express ourselves in natural language that causes the confusion.
Here is an example I could think of, in natural language: "In order to have internet (B), the router must be on (A). So, if there is no internet (not-B), that means the router is not on (not-A)" (Which is not true because there may be a problem with the providers, for example.)
So turning the router on is a necessary condition for having internet but can you then say: "If you turn the router on (A), there will be internet (B)." Saying that is just is not true. So is it just that we don't have a good way to express sufficient conditions (in comparison to necessary conditions) or is it that I just don't understanding some fundamental concept (or both)?
logic fallacies
asked 2 hours ago
user18894user18894
61
New contributor
user18894 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
About "If A, then B. Therefore, if not-B, then not-A":
From what I understand the conclusion is wrong, because it is not said that A is a sufficient condition for B, (and there may be other conditions required for B, so if they are not present B won't be the case, even if A is the case.).
But I have trouble finding a real life example to this and I'm not sure if it is the consept that I don't understand or it is just the way we express ourselves in natural language that causes the confusion.
Here is an example I could think of, in natural language: "In order to have internet (B), the router must be on (A). So, if there is no internet (not-B), that means the router is not on (not-A)" (Which is not true because there may be a problem with the providers, for example.)
So turning the router on is a necessary condition for having internet but can you then say: "If you turn the router on (A), there will be internet (B)." Saying that is just is not true. So is it just that we don't have a good way to express sufficient conditions (in comparison to necessary conditions) or is it that I just don't understanding some fundamental concept (or both)?
logic fallacies
asked 2 hours ago
user18894user18894
61
New contributor
user18894 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Not completely following the example you raise, butIf A, then B. Therefore, if not-B, then not-Ais not a fallacy. This is contraposition( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition) and it's always valid...
– virmaior
2 hours ago
This is the contrapositive of the afirmation A => B, i.e., it is logically equivalent, not a fallacy. Maybe the fallacy that could happen is ~A => ~B (where ~ = not).
– LAU
53 mins ago
add a comment |
About "If A, then B. Therefore, if not-B, then not-A":
From what I understand the conclusion is wrong, because it is not said that A is a sufficient condition for B, (and there may be other conditions required for B, so if they are not present B won't be the case, even if A is the case.).
But I have trouble finding a real life example to this and I'm not sure if it is the consept that I don't understand or it is just the way we express ourselves in natural language that causes the confusion.
Here is an example I could think of, in natural language: "In order to have internet (B), the router must be on (A). So, if there is no internet (not-B), that means the router is not on (not-A)" (Which is not true because there may be a problem with the providers, for example.)
So turning the router on is a necessary condition for having internet but can you then say: "If you turn the router on (A), there will be internet (B)." Saying that is just is not true. So is it just that we don't have a good way to express sufficient conditions (in comparison to necessary conditions) or is it that I just don't understanding some fundamental concept (or both)?
logic fallacies
asked 2 hours ago
user18894user18894
61
New contributor
user18894 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
About "If A, then B. Therefore, if not-B, then not-A":
From what I understand the conclusion is wrong, because it is not said that A is a sufficient condition for B, (and there may be other conditions required for B, so if they are not present B won't be the case, even if A is the case.).
But I have trouble finding a real life example to this and I'm not sure if it is the consept that I don't understand or it is just the way we express ourselves in natural language that causes the confusion.
Here is an example I could think of, in natural language: "In order to have internet (B), the router must be on (A). So, if there is no internet (not-B), that means the router is not on (not-A)" (Which is not true because there may be a problem with the providers, for example.)
So turning the router on is a necessary condition for having internet but can you then say: "If you turn the router on (A), there will be internet (B)." Saying that is just is not true. So is it just that we don't have a good way to express sufficient conditions (in comparison to necessary conditions) or is it that I just don't understanding some fundamental concept (or both)?
logic fallacies
logic fallacies
asked 2 hours ago
user18894user18894
61
New contributor
user18894 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
user18894user18894
61
New contributor
user18894 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
user18894user18894
61
New contributor
user18894 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
user18894user18894
61
asked 2 hours ago
user18894user18894
61
61
New contributor
user18894 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user18894 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user18894 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Not completely following the example you raise, butIf A, then B. Therefore, if not-B, then not-Ais not a fallacy. This is contraposition( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition) and it's always valid...
– virmaior
2 hours ago
This is the contrapositive of the afirmation A => B, i.e., it is logically equivalent, not a fallacy. Maybe the fallacy that could happen is ~A => ~B (where ~ = not).
– LAU
53 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Not completely following the example you raise, butIf A, then B. Therefore, if not-B, then not-Ais not a fallacy. This is contraposition( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition) and it's always valid...
– virmaior
2 hours ago
This is the contrapositive of the afirmation A => B, i.e., it is logically equivalent, not a fallacy. Maybe the fallacy that could happen is ~A => ~B (where ~ = not).
– LAU
53 mins ago
1
1
Not completely following the example you raise, but
If A, then B. Therefore, if not-B, then not-A is not a fallacy. This is contraposition( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition) and it's always valid...– virmaior
2 hours ago
Not completely following the example you raise, but
If A, then B. Therefore, if not-B, then not-A is not a fallacy. This is contraposition( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition) and it's always valid...– virmaior
2 hours ago
This is the contrapositive of the afirmation A => B, i.e., it is logically equivalent, not a fallacy. Maybe the fallacy that could happen is ~A => ~B (where ~ = not).
– LAU
53 mins ago
This is the contrapositive of the afirmation A => B, i.e., it is logically equivalent, not a fallacy. Maybe the fallacy that could happen is ~A => ~B (where ~ = not).
– LAU
53 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No fallacy
Router necessary for internet
Can be restated
Internet sufficient for router
Let's restate the second more elaborately
Internet (found to be) working is sufficient (evidence)
that the router (has to be) working
In addition to contrapositive suggested by @virmalor you may like to see also modus tollens
answered 1 hour ago
RusiRusi
562
New contributor
Rusi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
‘If not B then not A’ is the contrapositive of ‘If A then B’ and is logically valid.
By saying ‘if A then B’, the author is saying that whenever A happens, B will definitely happen. Hence, if B does not happen, it is clear that A did not happen (if not B then not A).
answered 52 mins ago
danielloiddanielloid
101
New contributor
danielloid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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
});
}
});
user18894 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f60623%2fi-have-trouble-understanding-this-fallacy-if-a-then-b-therefore-if-not-b-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No fallacy
Router necessary for internet
Can be restated
Internet sufficient for router
Let's restate the second more elaborately
Internet (found to be) working is sufficient (evidence)
that the router (has to be) working
In addition to contrapositive suggested by @virmalor you may like to see also modus tollens
answered 1 hour ago
RusiRusi
562
New contributor
Rusi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
No fallacy
Router necessary for internet
Can be restated
Internet sufficient for router
Let's restate the second more elaborately
Internet (found to be) working is sufficient (evidence)
that the router (has to be) working
In addition to contrapositive suggested by @virmalor you may like to see also modus tollens
answered 1 hour ago
RusiRusi
562
New contributor
Rusi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
No fallacy
Router necessary for internet
Can be restated
Internet sufficient for router
Let's restate the second more elaborately
Internet (found to be) working is sufficient (evidence)
that the router (has to be) working
In addition to contrapositive suggested by @virmalor you may like to see also modus tollens
answered 1 hour ago
RusiRusi
562
New contributor
Rusi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
No fallacy
Router necessary for internet
Can be restated
Internet sufficient for router
Let's restate the second more elaborately
Internet (found to be) working is sufficient (evidence)
that the router (has to be) working
In addition to contrapositive suggested by @virmalor you may like to see also modus tollens
answered 1 hour ago
RusiRusi
562
New contributor
Rusi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
RusiRusi
562
New contributor
Rusi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
RusiRusi
562
answered 1 hour ago
RusiRusi
562
562
New contributor
Rusi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Rusi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Rusi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
‘If not B then not A’ is the contrapositive of ‘If A then B’ and is logically valid.
By saying ‘if A then B’, the author is saying that whenever A happens, B will definitely happen. Hence, if B does not happen, it is clear that A did not happen (if not B then not A).
answered 52 mins ago
danielloiddanielloid
101
New contributor
danielloid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
‘If not B then not A’ is the contrapositive of ‘If A then B’ and is logically valid.
By saying ‘if A then B’, the author is saying that whenever A happens, B will definitely happen. Hence, if B does not happen, it is clear that A did not happen (if not B then not A).
answered 52 mins ago
danielloiddanielloid
101
New contributor
danielloid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
‘If not B then not A’ is the contrapositive of ‘If A then B’ and is logically valid.
By saying ‘if A then B’, the author is saying that whenever A happens, B will definitely happen. Hence, if B does not happen, it is clear that A did not happen (if not B then not A).
answered 52 mins ago
danielloiddanielloid
101
New contributor
danielloid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
‘If not B then not A’ is the contrapositive of ‘If A then B’ and is logically valid.
By saying ‘if A then B’, the author is saying that whenever A happens, B will definitely happen. Hence, if B does not happen, it is clear that A did not happen (if not B then not A).
answered 52 mins ago
danielloiddanielloid
101
New contributor
danielloid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 52 mins ago
danielloiddanielloid
101
New contributor
danielloid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 52 mins ago
danielloiddanielloid
101
answered 52 mins ago
danielloiddanielloid
101
101
New contributor
danielloid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
danielloid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
danielloid is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
user18894 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user18894 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user18894 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user18894 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f60623%2fi-have-trouble-understanding-this-fallacy-if-a-then-b-therefore-if-not-b-th%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
1
Not completely following the example you raise, but
If A, then B. Therefore, if not-B, then not-Ais not a fallacy. This is contraposition( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition) and it's always valid...– virmaior
2 hours ago
This is the contrapositive of the afirmation A => B, i.e., it is logically equivalent, not a fallacy. Maybe the fallacy that could happen is ~A => ~B (where ~ = not).
– LAU
53 mins ago