The cognitive error being discussed here relates to a systematic failures to make accurate descriptive statements. The distinction between deontological and con

The cognitive error being discussed here relates to a systematic failures to make accurate descriptive statements. The distinction between deontological and consequentialist thinking is entirely prescriptive. Being able to make accurate descriptive statements and understanding the accuracy of descriptive statements are valuable tools regardless of if you are a consequentialist, a deontologist or adhere to some other moral framework altogether. I believe that torture is wrong and I also believe that torture doesn't work. I could theoretically be convinced that torture works, but I would still believe that it is wrong. If I were to insist that torture doesn't work in the face of strong evidence to the contrary because of my moral beliefs that would be a cognitive error. Regarding your footnote: They cannot be the same thing because preferences are prescriptive and errors are (at least as they are being discussed here) are descriptive.