search

Commutation of Conditionals

(also known as: the fallacy of the consequent, converting a conditional)

Description: Switching the antecedent and the consequent in a logical argument.

Logical Form:

If P then Q.

Therefore, if Q then P.

Example #1:

If I have a PhD, then I am smart.

Therefore, if I am smart, then I have a PhD.

Explanation: There are many who could, rightly so, disagree with the first premise, but assuming that premise is true, does not guarantee that the conclusion is true.  There are many smart people without PhDs.

Example #2:

If I have herpes, then I have a strange rash.

Therefore, if I have a strange rash, then I have herpes.

Explanation: I am glad this is not true.  One can have non-herpes rashes.

Exception: If p=q, then it is necessarily true that q=p.

Tip: If you think might herpes, see your doctor.

References:

Pickard, W. A., & Aristotle. (2006). On Sophistical Refutations. ReadHowYouWant.com, Limited.

Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book