Re: Ove Interest?

Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized. 
That is clearly false.On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 04:05:47 -0500, Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:51:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 2/18/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

 
<snicker> dumbass thinks ignoring the result of the correlation means he
can deny a correlation.
 

>

 
Dumbass need to be re-educated on the meaning of "correlation"
 

...

 
This is from a dumbass who was presented with two government reports
detailing the specification, testing, acceptance, and subsequent
acquisition of 80,000 AR-15s by the US military and concludes 'the AR-15
is a weapon the US military never wanted and never used'.
 

>
Uneducable.
>

 
indeed.

>
He trots out his favorite platitude every time he's presented with
evidence that he doesn't like.
>
I suspect the only "causation" he'll accept is a correlation that was
fed to him from some whacko right wing talk show.
>
I'm generally resisting the urge to respond to him. I suspect that's
giving his life even less meaning, but I'm not sympathetic.

>
Failure to respond indicates that he has no answer, although there's
the remote possibility that he understand that I'm right, he's wrong
and simply doesn't have balls to admit it.
>
Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that is committed when it
is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the
antecedent is true as Krygowski did in the following statement:
>
"Providing proper fertilization to a growing plant correlates with
faster growth. That correlation correctly implies causation."
--Krygowski
>
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if P implies Q, therefore Q
implies P.
>
Affirming the consequent is claiming that if fertilization makes a
plant grow faster, therefore plants grow faster when fertilized. 
That is clearly false.
>
Krygowski and Junior might have learned that if they were better
educated
>
But then again, understanding the intricacies of logic requires a
level of intellect that neither of them possess.
>
 

Here's an even better example.

Affirming the consequent is claiming that because some people who have
guns in their home get shot, therefore having guns in your home cause
you to get shot.

That's clearly nonsense.

--
C'est bon
Soloman