Talk:Denying the antecedent
|
This Logic related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Making this article more approachable[edit]
I think this fallacy is much more common than this page makes it seem, and the technical jargon as used in the current form doesn't make it as useful or accessible a reference as I would like. I intend to make this article and its sibling, Affirming the consequent, more fun and useful so that people can be linked to them and hopefully be informed by them. I think putting a quote or two up top, like in some other fallacy pages, might be a good start, as well as perhaps some additional examples, hopefully as simple as can work. MisoprostolTea (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Safe example[edit]
It may be that I haven't woken up properly yet but I think the second example in the "Proper form" section is incorrect. Current form:
P1: I can get into this safe if I have the keys.
P2: I can't get into the safe!
C: I probably don't have the keys.
Seems to me that this is actually a (valid) example of modus tollens, even with the word "probably" removed. Maybe the confusion comes from P1, as the antecedent and consequent are in the reverse order that they are usually shown in, so the more familiar and (I believe) equivalent form would be:
P1: If I have the keys, then I can get into this safe
P2: I can't get into this safe
C: I do not have the keys