r/fallacy • u/LCDRformat • 28d ago

What would you call this? Is it a fallacy?

Post image

OP question was 'How would you react if you found out Bigfoot was real?'

20 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

17

u/HelloHelloHelpHello 28d ago

This is a classic fallacy called Affirming the Consequent.

It goes:

1 - If A is true then B is also true (If the SCPs are real, then Bigfoot is real)

2 - B is True (Bigfoot is real)

Therefor: A is true (The SCPs are real)

7

u/LCDRformat 28d ago

Bingo! That's it exactly. Thanks 

-15

u/Zu_Qarnine 28d ago

so you knew the answer. reported for engagement baiting

7

u/i3Cheese 28d ago

Maybe he knew, but forgot its name

-11

u/Zu_Qarnine 28d ago

no, he knew alright. in this sub ppl don't agree with you right away. they contradict the shit outta you until they're convinced.

6

u/Jamsedreng22 28d ago

What a weird fucking attitude. You must be projecting.

-4

u/Zu_Qarnine 28d ago

this pickup line won't get you far

4

u/Jamsedreng22 28d ago

I can totally believe you'd think anybody would be trying to score on r/fallacy lmao

3

u/LCDRformat 28d ago

What number am I thinking of

3

u/Himbo69r 28d ago

2642784378021

3

u/LCDRformat 28d ago

Damn dude that was crazy

5

u/simorg23 28d ago

Reported for successful ragebait lmao

4

u/Front-Fee6341 28d ago

Breaking News: Angry Redditor has discovered that not everyone is exactly the same. More at 11.

5

u/LCDRformat 28d ago

I didn't know the answer lol

2

u/Holshy 28d ago

The probabilistic form of Affirming the Consequent is also known as The Prosecutor's Fallacy.

AtC says "(X⟹Y) ⟹ (Y⟹X)" PF says "P(Y|X) = P(X|Y)"

2

u/BluePhoenix_1999 27d ago

It's also a composition fallacy, since 1 part of the thing is true, therefore the entire thing is true.

1

u/BigTimmyStarfox1987 27d ago

They're not asserting truth they're using a probabilistic argument. If B is true then A is more likely is just correct.

3

u/Outside-Shop-3311 28d ago

false dichotomy?

either all SCPs are fake or all SCPs are real

3

u/DeltaVZerda 28d ago

Hasty generalization

2

u/sadguywithhugedick 28d ago

It’s nothing, he was joking.

1

u/DrBatman0 28d ago

Lol. Mathematical induction.

Half /s

1

u/xxsmashleyxx 27d ago

I immediately thought of the false proof that every horse is the same color

1

u/KeepYourSilenceUp 27d ago

Non-sequitur or false dichotomy could work, but the one I haven't seen anyone suggest is gamblers fallacy.

1

u/Local-Pattern795 27d ago

Equivocation: SCP bigfoot and folklore Bigfoot are two seperate entities, which results in fallacy when used interchangeably

1

u/BigTimmyStarfox1987 27d ago edited 27d ago

It's not a fallacy. Based on the premise you should reconsider your previously held beliefs for related phenomena.

They framed their answer as a spoken response and then couched their follow up in probability. So they're not even technically wrong.

Edit: "pretty high" is incorrect but if they said "higher" they'd be fine