A. K. A. Loose Canon
That's some pretty blatant bullshit, huh?
But, is it tasteless?
Taranto comes up today with another gem in the genre:Here's Forman's argument, encapsulated into a syllogism: If someone is not a socialist, he is not a communist. Obama is not a communist. Therefore, Obama is not a socialist.The technical term for the fallacy Forman has committed is "affirming the consequent": mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient one. In other words, (A=>B) => (B =>A). One of the most basic principles of Pepean Logick, explained in a succinct way.
How about this fallacy? What's the name for it?
Post a Comment