Welcome to Douglas Wilson's The Plodcast, presented by Canon Press.

Yeah. Yes, God, God, God don't never.

So welcome to the Plod plodcast this is episode 204 episode 204

what I'd like to talk about here initially is anti-Semitism and affirming the consequent.

Anti-Semitism and affirming the consequent.

I've written a few times about anti-Semitism, I've written a few times about Jews and the people who have a conspiracy take about

the Jews and people who are hostile to Jews and then they're of course Christian Zionists usually found among dispensationalists

who are fans of Israel no matter what and so there's a wide array of views on

this opinion and these opinions are all of them strongly held.

So I've written about anti-Semitism in the past and I've noticed something about a few of the reactions which where the

affirming the consequent comes in so let me explain what affirming the consequent is first.

Affirming the consequent, in a hypothetical syllogism and logic, if I say something like

if P then Q.

Okay? If I study, then I will get an A.

Okay? If I study, then I will get an A.

If you affirm the consequent, Q, I got an A, and then conclude P, therefore I must have studied.

That is a fallacy, and it's the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

It's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Here's a better example.

If this is a dog, it will have four legs.

If this is a dog, it will have four legs. If this is a dog, it will have four legs. This animal here has four legs.

Therefore, it's a dog. Well, you can see right off that it could be a cat, could be a moose, could be a cow, could be any number of

...