Argument from adverse consequences
m (stubbing and/or adding VSA) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[[Category:Logic]] | [[Category:Logic]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Assessing pseudoscience]] | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
Revision as of 15:11, 7 October 2007
An argument from adverse consequences is a logical fallacy of the type where a possible negative outcome is seen as a reason for discounting a particular subject or matter. An example may go like this: Eugenics is an offshoot of evolution and eugenics is bad, therefore evolution is bad.
Seldom do the proponents of this type of argument turn the argument on their own beliefs, because, lets face it, adverse consequences can be found in nearly all matters of life. For example, if the above argument was used by a Christian creationist, they are, for some reason, unlikely to accept the proposition that because Christianity led to the Crusades then Christianity is bad. They will generally try to justify their position by falling back on the No True Scotsman argument and suggest the crusades were not enacted by true christians, and therefore do not reflect badly on Christianity.
You can help RationalWiki by expanding it.