Originally Posted By: Derid

Nothing wrong with appealing to probability


Well, aside from it being a known fallacy?

Quote:
because not trying to prove something did happen only that it might have happened.


You can't prove that it might happen based on simple possibility of it happening, because it might happen or it might not happen.

Think of it this way - I can buy a lottery ticket and might win it, simply buying a lottery ticket is not in any way can be considered an evidence of winning a lottery.

(P1) I bought lottery ticket
-------
(C) I won lottery

Above is invalid argument, because I could have bought non-winning ticket. So P1 can be true while C is false making it invalid argument.

(P1) I bought lottery ticket
(P2) Lottery ticket I bought has a winning number
----------
(C) I won lottery

Above is valid argument.

If argument is invalid, I don't have to consider premises to know it cannot be sound.

Please consider implications of this.

If you like, I can do a write up on formal reasoning to explain it in more details.

[Linked Image]