tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post2686781768963547345..comments2024-01-25T13:46:11.967-06:00Comments on The Bronze Blog: Doggerel #122: "You'll Be Sorry!"Ryan Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14750814560493466382noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-33882197054832977612007-09-14T14:02:00.000-05:002007-09-14T14:02:00.000-05:00I tend to think of the appeal to consequences and ...I tend to think of the appeal to consequences and the appeal to consequences <I>of belief</I> to be somewhat separate.<BR/><BR/>But don't worry, the latter will be covered in the next Doggerel entry. I suppose what I was going for was appeal to consequences of action, rather than of belief. Might end up reorganizing both.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-25019789055930059172007-09-14T12:27:00.000-05:002007-09-14T12:27:00.000-05:00If you don't wear a tinfoil hat, the government wi...<I>If you don't wear a tinfoil hat, the government will read your mind. Therefore, you should wear a tinfoil hat. Where the fallacies come in, of course, is the first part of that statement: What evidence do they have that the government can read your mind, and furthermore, what evidence do they have that tinfoil can prevent it?</I><BR/><BR/>It's not the lack of evidence, per se, that makes it a <I>fallacy</I>. The way you have it worded there does make it sound like it's implying a Denying the Antecedent fallacy, though.<BR/><BR/>The informal fallacy of Appeal to Consequences might look something more like this:<BR/><BR/>Darwinism leads to immorality.<BR/>Accepting Darwinism will make people bad.<BR/>Therefore, Darwinism is false.<BR/><BR/>Or maybe:<BR/><BR/>Those who don't accept Christ go to Hell.<BR/>Hell is a place of eternal suffering.<BR/>Therefore, the Gospels are true.<BR/><BR/>Your "You'll be sorry" doggerel also sounds a bit like the argumentum ad bacculum fallacy (argument to the stick):<BR/><BR/>Everyone who does not accept X will be hurt.<BR/>Therefore, X is true.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Eternal punishment in Hell is also an argumentum ad bacculum fallacy in addition to being a fallacious appeal to consequences. The two are pretty closely related.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-1696841007322575872007-09-14T09:59:00.000-05:002007-09-14T09:59:00.000-05:00Good point. May edit it a bit later, since I was l...Good point. May edit it a bit later, since I was largely referring to the use of "You'll be sorry" to refer to made-up consequences of a sensible plan, or failure to go by the woo plan.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-18237297128021795852007-09-14T09:55:00.000-05:002007-09-14T09:55:00.000-05:00Re: When I think of it, just about everything is ...Re: <B> When I think of it, just about everything is an appeal to consequences. If you get into a car accident while not wearing your seatbelt, you're more likely to get injured. Therefore, you should wear your seatbelt.</B><BR/><BR/>In that case you’re considering a plan. An appeal to consequences when deciding on a plan is not fallacious. An appeal to consequences is fallacious when it’s a truth statement – the truth of something is not determined by the consequences of it being true or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com