3 ms·

> When you have a highly overvalued attribute, that attribute becomes an indicator of overvaluation. That is a hell of a leap. It is actually a strict logical

> When you have a highly overvalued attribute, that attribute becomes an indicator of overvaluation. That is a hell of a leap. It is actually a strict logical fallacy, called affirming the consequent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent In other words this is a huge gap in your reasoning, it is claim - not a conclusion - that you are making and it is one that requires evidence. To put it another way: your argument is wholly conclusory and the only way to settle this argument is with evidence. It cannot be derived from first principle. There may be some instances where surface-level indicia (I can tell about the quality of a fabric pretty quickly, and it is typically indicative of good tailoring) are strongly correlated with quality and others where there is a low (a fresh paint job on a house) or even a potenitally inverse correlation (REALLY NICE ads for attorneys - located on bus stops). But your blanket statement is just unsupported. I am not saying it is false - I am saying it is unsupported and you are jumping to a huge conclusion that does not follow logically, nor can it be proved to follow on the basis of logic alone.

travisjungroth 10y ago
That logical fallacy is not equivalent to what I'm saying. Assume attribute X is overvalued. Object A has attribute X. Object A is indicated to be overvalued. This may not meet the strict requirements of a college logic class as stated, but I still believe it is true. I'm not making a statement here about exactly what attributes are overvalued (fabric, paint jobs, bus stops or otherwise). An argument of the article is that "image" is overvalued. I don't think the author did the best job supporting this argument.
- Domenic_S 10y ago
  The fallacy he's intuiting is really the implied denial of the antecedent: If X, then Y !X Therefore, !Y As in: Attribute X is overvalued Object B does NOT have attribute X. Therefore Object B is NOT overvalued. So in other words, your statement may be true: > When you have a highly overvalued attribute, that attribute becomes an indicator of overvaluation. but the implication of the inverse: when you DON'T have a highly overvalued attribute, lack of that attribute becomes an indicator of a lack of overvaluation. is not.

travisjungroth 10y ago

That logical fallacy is not equivalent to what I'm saying. Assume attribute X is overvalued. Object A has attribute X. Object A is indicated to be overvalued. This may not meet the strict requirements of a college logic class as stated, but I still believe it is true. I'm not making a statement here about exactly what attributes are overvalued (fabric, paint jobs, bus stops or otherwise). An argument of the article is that "image" is overvalued. I don't think the author did the best job supporting this argument.

Domenic_S 10y ago
The fallacy he's intuiting is really the implied denial of the antecedent: If X, then Y !X Therefore, !Y As in: Attribute X is overvalued Object B does NOT have attribute X. Therefore Object B is NOT overvalued. So in other words, your statement may be true: > When you have a highly overvalued attribute, that attribute becomes an indicator of overvaluation. but the implication of the inverse: when you DON'T have a highly overvalued attribute, lack of that attribute becomes an indicator of a lack of overvaluation. is not.