| Proving a Premise from a Conclusion |
Proving a Premise from a Conclusion FallacyProving a premise from a conclusion is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The Proving a Premise from a Conclusion Fallacy occurs when a premise is claimed to be true because the conclusion is true. The conclusions may be true or it may seem to be true. That conclusion is used to demonstrate that one of the premises is true, but the premise is not necessarily true. Examples of the Proving a Premise from a Conclusion Fallacy
The conclusion is that natural selection takes place. Few would argue. However, the conclusion is being used to prove the premise about molecules-to-man evolutionism, which is very debatable. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionNon Sequitur Sherlock Holmes Fallacy Availability Heuristic Blind Men and an Elephant Counter-Induction Idola Fori Idola Theatri Idola Specus Idola Tribus Loki\'s Wager Proving Too Much Greek Math It Could Be Worse It Could Be Better Retrogressive Causation Alternative Syllogism Golden Hammer Exception That Proves the Rule Fallacy Selling the Defect Ignorance of Refutation Recently Viewed |
