Hacker News Reader

Affirming the consequent fallacy:

> If Brian had been thrown off the top of the Eiffel Tower, then he would be dead.

> Brian is dead.

> Therefore, Brian was thrown off the top of the Eiffel Tower.

You're using it as a generalized argument that could be used to cast doubt on anything that is true. If someone makes a prediction if A then B, then we decide to do A and B happens, the duty of people who still believe that A doesn't imply B is to at least speculate about alternate causes of B, not to argue against the concept of cause and effect.

I say this as someone who thinks $15 is too low.

Only one problem, mapping my statement to your example, Brian was thrown off the Eiffel Tower and Brian is dead. Now did Brian land in a net and die of other causes? I guess you have to argue without using random fallacies that don't apply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com