onegoodmove

One of the most interesting logical fallacies is the counterfactual also known as "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact"

After the 2000 election many made the argument that if Ralph Nader hadn't run then Al Gore would have been elected president. This is an example of a counterfactual, and it cannot be proven. Recently we have heard the neo-cons making claims that had we not invaded Iraq the movements for peace in the area would not be taking place. This is also a counterfactual. In both of these examples there are many other causes to consider. it is true that one of the possible causes for Gore's loss was Nader's participation in the race, but that is not proof that he would have been elected sans Nader. Likewise the war in Iraq is one of the possible causes for the democratic stirrings in the Middle East, but neither is it proof that the results wouldn't have been the same or similar had the war not occured. In the Nader case those who voted for Nader may not have voted or voted for another third party candidate. Had Nader not run other candidates may have entered the race. Gore may have campaigned differently if Nader hadn't run, well you get the idea. In the case of the Middle-East, the death of Yasser Arafat may have been a more significant factor to name just one of the many possible causes.

Bruce Thompson's Fallacy Page has one of the best explanations of the counterfactual also known as Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact

Description:

From a statement of fact, the argument draws a counterfactual claim (i.e. a claim about what would have been true if the stated fact were not true). The argument falsely assumes that any state of affairs can have only one possible cause.

Examples:

"I taught you logic. So, if I hadn't taught you logic, you never would have learned logic at all."

--paraphrased from Max Schulman's "Love is a Fallacy"

"In this country citizens are permitted to own guns. Therefore, if guns were outlawed, citizens would be unable to protect themselves and there would be an uncontrollable crime wave."

Discussion:

We know that actions have consequences. We are able to speculate about the consequences of our actions because there is a real causal connection between how we act and how things turn out. We avoid certain actions because we are able to understand those causal connections. Wise choices require an awareness of consequences and an ability to reason hypothetically about them. It is perfectly good reasoning to say, "I didn't turn left because, if I had turned left I would have gotten lost."  This means, of course, that we can speculate on how matters might have turned out differently if we had acted differently - for good or ill. A teacher is entitled to say, "You got an F because you didn't turn in your assignments. If you had turned in your assignments you wouldn't have gotten an F."

The fallacy of Hypothesis Contrary to Fact follows the same general pattern of reasoning. However, it does so in a context in which the consequences of an action are not actually clear. In a complex situation other factors are likely to intervene. The boundary between clear situations and complex situations is, of course, broad and fuzzy, and the fuzziness of the boundary allows fallacious reasoning to masquerade as good practical speculation. The connection between failing to turn in assignments and failing to pass the class is simple and obvious. It is easy to understand how things would have turned out differently if the assignments had been turned in. The connection between gun ownership and levels of crime in a community is complex and indirect. In that context we can't easily project how things would be different if circumstances were changed. Nevertheless our usual success with speculative reasoning (in simpler contexts) may embolden us into thinking that we can speculate successfully even here.

 
Classification: A False Cause Fallacy (a retroductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premiss).