Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 1,17 (click to see context) from:
Ad hoc is a fallacious debating tactic (also called a "just so story" or an "ad hoc rescue") in which an explanation of why a particular thing ''may be'' is substituted for an argument as to why it ''is''; since it is therefore not an argument, it is not technically a fallacy, but is usually listed as one because it is a substitution for a valid argument. It is similar in form to MovingTheGoalposts, but protects the argument by adding additional speculative terms rather than changing the meaning of existing ones.
Users of ad hoc claims generally believe the excuses and rationalisations serve to shore up the original hypothesis, but in fact each additional speculative term weakens it. This is both due to the speculations being based simply on the faith that there ''might'' be an explanation, and because each additional term makes the hypothesis weaker according to the principle of OccamsRazor.
"Possibly," "probably," "maybe," "might" and "could" are all good markers of ''ad hoc'' claims.
It's a very common sight in Administrivia/{{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item described. For example:
->''"There is a glaring PlotHole in this movie, since it is said that magic cannot work in the Dark Zone, yet later on Alice resurrects Bob while fighting the Phantom Lord."''
->''"It's possible that Alice learned a form of magic that does work in the Dark Zone, and that's what she used to save Bob."''
Here the second poster is not presenting evidence: rather, they are explaining what the evidence they ''do not have'' ought to look like.
!!! Looks like this fallacy, but isn't:
* When an opponent makes the argument "A, therefore B" there are two ways to rebut it: either show A is false, or that A does not necessarily lead to B. The latter rebuttal can be speculative without being ad hoc. Explanation: there are two types of causes: necessary and sufficient. A necessary cause must exist for the effect to happen, but may not be enough by itself to cause the effect. A sufficient cause can create the effect all by itself, but may not have to exist for the effect to happen. Oxygen is a necessary cause for fire; no oxygen, no fire, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Oxygen is not a sufficient cause for fire; lots of other things have to happen as well as there being oxygen around. Decapitation is a sufficient cause of death; decapitation will kill you without anything else being required. It is not a necessary cause of death; there are all kinds of causes of death which leave the head attached.
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are other addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
Users of ad hoc claims generally believe the excuses and rationalisations serve to shore up the original hypothesis, but in fact each additional speculative term weakens it. This is both due to the speculations being based simply on the faith that there ''might'' be an explanation, and because each additional term makes the hypothesis weaker according to the principle of OccamsRazor.
"Possibly," "probably," "maybe," "might" and "could" are all good markers of ''ad hoc'' claims.
It's a very common sight in Administrivia/{{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item described. For example:
->''"There is a glaring PlotHole in this movie, since it is said that magic cannot work in the Dark Zone, yet later on Alice resurrects Bob while fighting the Phantom Lord."''
->''"It's possible that Alice learned a form of magic that does work in the Dark Zone, and that's what she used to save Bob."''
Here the second poster is not presenting evidence: rather, they are explaining what the evidence they ''do not have'' ought to look like.
!!! Looks like this fallacy, but isn't:
* When an opponent makes the argument "A, therefore B" there are two ways to rebut it: either show A is false, or that A does not necessarily lead to B. The latter rebuttal can be speculative without being ad hoc. Explanation: there are two types of causes: necessary and sufficient. A necessary cause must exist for the effect to happen, but may not be enough by itself to cause the effect. A sufficient cause can create the effect all by itself, but may not have to exist for the effect to happen. Oxygen is a necessary cause for fire; no oxygen, no fire, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Oxygen is not a sufficient cause for fire; lots of other things have to happen as well as there being oxygen around. Decapitation is a sufficient cause of death; decapitation will kill you without anything else being required. It is not a necessary cause of death; there are all kinds of causes of death which leave the head attached.
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are other addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
to:
Users of ad hoc claims generally believe the excuses and rationalisations serve to shore up the original hypothesis, but in fact each additional speculative term weakens it. This is both due to the speculations being based simply on the faith that there ''might'' be an explanation, and because each additional term makes the hypothesis weaker according to the principle of OccamsRazor.
"Possibly," "probably," "maybe," "might" and "could" are all good markers of ''ad hoc'' claims.
It's a very common sight in Administrivia/{{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item described. For example:
->''"There is a glaring PlotHole in this movie, since it is said that magic cannot work in the Dark Zone, yet later on Alice resurrects Bob while fighting the Phantom Lord."''
->''"It's possible that Alice learned a form of magic that does work in the Dark Zone, and that's what she used to save Bob."''
Here the second poster is not presenting evidence: rather, they are explaining what the evidence they ''do not have'' ought to look like.
!!! Looks like this fallacy, but isn't:
* When an opponent makes the argument "A, therefore B" there are two ways to rebut it: either show A is false, or that A does not necessarily lead to B. The latter rebuttal can be speculative without being ad hoc. Explanation: there are two types of causes: necessary and sufficient. A necessary cause must exist for the effect to happen, but may not be enough by itself to cause the effect. A sufficient cause can create the effect all by itself, but may not have to exist for the effect to happen. Oxygen is a necessary cause for fire; no oxygen, no fire, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Oxygen is not a sufficient cause for fire; lots of other things have to happen as well as there being oxygen around. Decapitation is a sufficient cause of death; decapitation will kill you without anything else being required. It is not a necessary cause of death; there are all kinds of causes of death which leave the head attached.
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are other addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
to:
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are other addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
It's a very common sight in {{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item described. For example:
to:
It's a very common sight in {{justifying Administrivia/{{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item described. For example:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
to:
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16,18 (click to see context) from:
* When used to argue against "A because B" when C, D, or E could also have caused B. Explanation: there are two types of causes: necessary and sufficient. A necessary cause must exist for the effect to happen, but may not be enough by itself to cause the effect. A sufficient cause can cause the effect all by itself, but may not have to exist for the effect to happen. Oxygen is a necessary cause for fire; no oxygen, no fire, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Oxygen is not a sufficient cause for fire; lots of other things have to happen as well as there being oxygen around. Decapitation is a sufficient cause of death; decapitation will kill you without anything else being required. It is not a necessary cause of death; there are all kinds of causes of death which leave the head attached.
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
* When an opponent makes the argument "A, therefore B" there are two ways to rebut it: either show A is false, or that A does not necessarily lead to B. The latter rebuttal can be speculative without being ad hoc.
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
* When an opponent makes the argument "A, therefore B" there are two ways to rebut it: either show A is false, or that A does not necessarily lead to B. The latter rebuttal can be speculative without being ad hoc.
to:
* When used to argue against "A because an opponent makes the argument "A, therefore B" when C, D, there are two ways to rebut it: either show A is false, or E could also have caused B.that A does not necessarily lead to B. The latter rebuttal can be speculative without being ad hoc. Explanation: there are two types of causes: necessary and sufficient. A necessary cause must exist for the effect to happen, but may not be enough by itself to cause the effect. A sufficient cause can cause create the effect all by itself, but may not have to exist for the effect to happen. Oxygen is a necessary cause for fire; no oxygen, no fire, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Oxygen is not a sufficient cause for fire; lots of other things have to happen as well as there being oxygen around. Decapitation is a sufficient cause of death; decapitation will kill you without anything else being required. It is not a necessary cause of death; there are all kinds of causes of death which leave the head attached.
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based onit.
* When an opponent makes the argument "A, therefore B" there are two ways to rebut it: either show A is false, or that A does not necessarily lead to B. The latter rebuttal can be speculative without being ad hoc.it.
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on
* When an opponent makes the argument "A, therefore B" there are two ways to rebut it: either show A is false, or that A does not necessarily lead to B. The latter rebuttal can be speculative without being ad hoc.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
to:
* A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.it.
* When an opponent makes the argument "A, therefore B" there are two ways to rebut it: either show A is false, or that A does not necessarily lead to B. The latter rebuttal can be speculative without being ad hoc.
* When an opponent makes the argument "A, therefore B" there are two ways to rebut it: either show A is false, or that A does not necessarily lead to B. The latter rebuttal can be speculative without being ad hoc.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,4 (click to see context) from:
Ad Hoc ("To This") reasoning is where someone fails to understand that there is a difference between argument and explanation. The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
It's a very common sight in {{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item described.
It's a very common sight in {{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item described.
to:
Ad Hoc ("To This") reasoning is where someone fails to understand that there hoc is a difference between argument and explanation. The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give fallacious debating tactic (also called a "just so story" or an after-the-fact "ad hoc rescue") in which an explanation which doesn't apply of why a particular thing ''may be'' is substituted for an argument as to other situations. If we're interested in establishing A, and B why it ''is''; since it is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is therefore not an argument, it's it is not technically a fallacy, but is usually listed as one because it is a substitution for a valid argument. It is similar in form to MovingTheGoalposts, but protects the argument by adding additional speculative terms rather than changing the meaning of existing ones.
Users of ad hoc claims generally believe the excuses and rationalisations serve to shore up the original hypothesis, but in fact each additional speculative term weakens it. This is both due to the speculations being based simply on the faith that there ''might'' be anexplanation.
explanation, and because each additional term makes the hypothesis weaker according to the principle of OccamsRazor.
"Possibly," "probably," "maybe," "might" and "could" are all good markers of ''ad hoc'' claims.
It's a very common sight in {{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the itemdescribed.
described. For example:
->''"There is a glaring PlotHole in this movie, since it is said that magic cannot work in the Dark Zone, yet later on Alice resurrects Bob while fighting the Phantom Lord."''
->''"It's possible that Alice learned a form of magic that does work in the Dark Zone, and that's what she used to save Bob."''
Here the second poster is not presenting evidence: rather, they are explaining what the evidence they ''do not have'' ought to look like.
Users of ad hoc claims generally believe the excuses and rationalisations serve to shore up the original hypothesis, but in fact each additional speculative term weakens it. This is both due to the speculations being based simply on the faith that there ''might'' be an
"Possibly," "probably," "maybe," "might" and "could" are all good markers of ''ad hoc'' claims.
It's a very common sight in {{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item
->''"There is a glaring PlotHole in this movie, since it is said that magic cannot work in the Dark Zone, yet later on Alice resurrects Bob while fighting the Phantom Lord."''
->''"It's possible that Alice learned a form of magic that does work in the Dark Zone, and that's what she used to save Bob."''
Here the second poster is not presenting evidence: rather, they are explaining what the evidence they ''do not have'' ought to look like.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,10 (click to see context) from:
Ad Hoc ("To This") reasoning is a ''failure to make an argument'' relevant to the topic at-hand, while still saying stuff which could be relevant to other topics. Doing this is (somewhat misleadingly) called 'explanation'.
For instance, we could be trying to establish the relationship between A and B.
1. 'A is caused by B' is an argument because, regardless of whether it's valid or true, it's relevant to the topic.
2. 'B is caused by C' is an explanation because, regardless of whether it's valid or true, it's irrelevant to the topic.
The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
For instance, we could be trying to establish the relationship between A and B.
1. 'A is caused by B' is an argument because, regardless of whether it's valid or true, it's relevant to the topic.
2. 'B is caused by C' is an explanation because, regardless of whether it's valid or true, it's irrelevant to the topic.
The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
to:
Ad Hoc ("To This") reasoning is a ''failure where someone fails to make an argument'' relevant to the topic at-hand, while still saying stuff which could be relevant to other topics. Doing this understand that there is (somewhat misleadingly) called 'explanation'.
For instance, we could be trying to establish the relationshipa difference between A and B.
1. 'A is caused by B' is anargument because, regardless of whether it's valid or true, it's relevant to the topic.
2. 'B is caused by C' is an explanation because, regardless of whether it's valid or true, it's irrelevant to the topic.
and explanation. The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
For instance, we could be trying to establish the relationship
1. 'A is caused by B' is an
2. 'B is caused by C' is an explanation because, regardless of whether it's valid or true, it's irrelevant to the topic.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3,4 (click to see context) from:
For instance, we could be trying to establish whether A is caused by B.
to:
For instance, we could be trying to establish whether the relationship between A is caused by and B.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
Ad Hoc ("To This") reasoning is where someone fails to understand that there is a difference between argument and explanation. The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
to:
Ad Hoc ("To This") reasoning is where someone fails a ''failure to understand that there make an argument'' relevant to the topic at-hand, while still saying stuff which could be relevant to other topics. Doing this is a difference between (somewhat misleadingly) called 'explanation'.
For instance, we could be trying to establish whether A is caused by B.
1. 'A is caused by B' is an argumentand explanation. because, regardless of whether it's valid or true, it's relevant to the topic.
2. 'B is caused by C' is an explanation because, regardless of whether it's valid or true, it's irrelevant to the topic.
The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
For instance, we could be trying to establish whether A is caused by B.
1. 'A is caused by B' is an argument
2. 'B is caused by C' is an explanation because, regardless of whether it's valid or true, it's irrelevant to the topic.
The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
** A simple way to see this is to remember to [=SiN=], where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
** A simple way to see this is to remember to SiN, where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
to:
** A simple way to see this is to remember to SiN, [=SiN=], where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
* When used to argue against "A because B" when C, D, or E could also have caused B. Explanation: there are two types of causes: necessary and sufficient. A necessary cause must exist for the effect to happen, but may not be enough by itself to cause the effect. A sufficient cause can cause the effect all by itself, but may not have to exist for the effect to happen. Oxygen is a necessary cause for fire; no oxygen, no fire, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Oxygen is not a sufficient cause for fire; lots of other things have to happen as well as there being oxygen around. Decapitation is a sufficient cause of death; decapitation will kill you without anything else being required. It is not a necessary cause of death; there are all kinds of causes of death which leave the head attached.
to:
* When used to argue against "A because B" when C, D, or E could also have caused B. Explanation: there are two types of causes: necessary and sufficient. A necessary cause must exist for the effect to happen, but may not be enough by itself to cause the effect. A sufficient cause can cause the effect all by itself, but may not have to exist for the effect to happen. Oxygen is a necessary cause for fire; no oxygen, no fire, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Oxygen is not a sufficient cause for fire; lots of other things have to happen as well as there being oxygen around. Decapitation is a sufficient cause of death; decapitation will kill you without anything else being required. It is not a necessary cause of death; there are all kinds of causes of death which leave the head attached.attached.
** A simple way to see this is to remember to SiN, where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
** A simple way to see this is to remember to SiN, where the Sufficient Implies Necessary. In other words, review the sufficient and necessary statements as an If-then statement, then the sufficient should naturally come first. If you are decapitated, then you will die. (Death as necessary for decapitation, decapitation is sufficient for death.) If you eat a thousand donuts then you will gain weight. (A thousand donuts will surely make you heavier - in other words, is sufficient, but it is hardly necessary for making you heavier.) If you browse TV Tropes, then you will waste hours on the internet. (Directing someone to TV Tropes is a sufficient for them wasting hours upon hours online, but there are addictive sites out there.) As a tool, it is useful for conceptualizing the difference, but do not argue logically based on it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
* When used to argue against "A because B" when C, D, or E could also have caused B. Explanation: there are two types of causes: necessary and sufficient. A necessary cause must exist for the effect to happen--but may not be enough by itself to cause the effect. A sufficient cause can cause the effect all by itself--but may not have to exist for the effect to happen. Oxygen is a necessary cause for fire; no oxygen, no fire, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Oxygen is not a sufficient cause for fire; lots of other things have to happen as well as there being oxygen around. Decapitation is a sufficient cause of death; decapitation will kill you without anything else being required. It is not a necessary cause of death; there are all kinds of causes of death which leave the head attached.
to:
* When used to argue against "A because B" when C, D, or E could also have caused B. Explanation: there are two types of causes: necessary and sufficient. A necessary cause must exist for the effect to happen--but happen, but may not be enough by itself to cause the effect. A sufficient cause can cause the effect all by itself--but itself, but may not have to exist for the effect to happen. Oxygen is a necessary cause for fire; no oxygen, no fire, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Oxygen is not a sufficient cause for fire; lots of other things have to happen as well as there being oxygen around. Decapitation is a sufficient cause of death; decapitation will kill you without anything else being required. It is not a necessary cause of death; there are all kinds of causes of death which leave the head attached.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
It's a very common sight in {{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item described.
to:
It's a very common sight in {{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item described.described.
!!! Looks like this fallacy, but isn't:
* When used to argue against "A because B" when C, D, or E could also have caused B. Explanation: there are two types of causes: necessary and sufficient. A necessary cause must exist for the effect to happen--but may not be enough by itself to cause the effect. A sufficient cause can cause the effect all by itself--but may not have to exist for the effect to happen. Oxygen is a necessary cause for fire; no oxygen, no fire, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Oxygen is not a sufficient cause for fire; lots of other things have to happen as well as there being oxygen around. Decapitation is a sufficient cause of death; decapitation will kill you without anything else being required. It is not a necessary cause of death; there are all kinds of causes of death which leave the head attached.
!!! Looks like this fallacy, but isn't:
* When used to argue against "A because B" when C, D, or E could also have caused B. Explanation: there are two types of causes: necessary and sufficient. A necessary cause must exist for the effect to happen--but may not be enough by itself to cause the effect. A sufficient cause can cause the effect all by itself--but may not have to exist for the effect to happen. Oxygen is a necessary cause for fire; no oxygen, no fire, regardless of anything else that might be going on. Oxygen is not a sufficient cause for fire; lots of other things have to happen as well as there being oxygen around. Decapitation is a sufficient cause of death; decapitation will kill you without anything else being required. It is not a necessary cause of death; there are all kinds of causes of death which leave the head attached.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,3 (click to see context) from:
:: Ad Hoc ("To This") reasoning is where someone fails to understand that there is a difference between argument and explanation. The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation.
:: It's a very common sight in {{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item described.
:: It's a very common sight in {{justifying edit}}s aimed at any supposedly negative trope, particularly if that edit calls upon things that ''might'' have happened to cause the item described.
to:
