Cogito ergo sum Logic and rhetoric |
Key articles |
General logic |
Bad logic |
Substituting explanation for premise is a logical fallacy that occurs when a flawed explanation for a phenomenon is taken as evidence that the phenomenon did/does not occur at all.
The fallacy is a formal fallacy.
The fallacy ultimately follows the fallacious form:
When this fallacy is committed, someone may attempt to refute claims that the phenomenon occurs by refuting the theory invoked to explain it. It is fallacious because the reason for believing the phenomenon in question to occur is independent of the theory used to explain it.
This fallacy probably results from a failure to distinguish the reasons for a phenomenon from the reasons to believe a phenomenon occurs. For example, the theory of evolution by means of mutation and natural selection can be used to explain the presence of transitional fossils and the high levels of consistency of phylogenetic trees created with different methods. If one determined that the theory did not suffice to explain these phenomena, it would not follow that the phenomena are not real.
The point(s) where the fallacy is committed is/are italicized.
You do not commit this fallacy if you: