Commutation of Conditionals |
Logical Fallacy of Commutation of Conditionals / Fallacy of the Consequent / Converting a ConditionalCommutation of conditionals is a formal fallacy that covers up the problem when 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 logical fallacy of commutation of conditionals / fallacy of the consequent / converting a conditional occurs when someone reasons that since one thing being true means that a second thing is true, this means that when the second thing is true, that means that the first thing is also true. That doesn’t always work. This is sometimes referred to as switching the antecedent and the consequent. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Commutation of Conditionals / Fallacy of the Consequent / Converting a Conditional
It is easy to gain knowledge of science without taking a college-level science class. The conclusion is wrong because it involves a communtation of conditionals.
This is invalid form: commutation of conditionals
This is an example of the commutation of conditionals, and not an uncommon mistake among Christians. ![]()
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionFormally Correct Fallacy Affirming the Consequent Affirming a Disjunct Denying the Antecedent Illicit Process Illicit Major Illicit Minor Invalid form using All Invalid form using \"Some\" Unwarranted Contrast Denying a Conjunct Positive Conclusion from Negative Premises Illicit Affirmative Existential Instantiation Exclusive Premises Fallacy of Four Terms Fallacy of Necessity Fallacy of False Conversion Illicit Contraposition Hooded Man Fallacy Confusing \"if\" with \"if and only if\" Improper Transposition Invalid form using \"OR\" Confusion of \"Necessary\" with a \"Sufficient\" Condition Galileo Argument (Formal) Four Terms Fallacy Recently Viewed |