False conclusions (logic)

A false conclusion is where all given reasons and evidence point to a given conclusion, but due to the omission, incorrect assumption, lie or missing piece of information required, the individual arrives at a false conclusion.

There are two types of false conclusion:
 * Valid false conclusion
 * Invalid false conclusion

Valid false conclusion
Valid is where all the supplied information is correct and true, but the conclusion is false. For example, Bob says his area is wet, and recent weather report says it has been raining in that area, so a valid conclusion is that 'it's wet due to the rain'.

However, it is a false conclusion. The area is wet indoors due to a water spillage. The omission of either 'indoors' or 'water spillage' resulted in the arrival of the false conclusion, and one of the problems of deductive reasoning.

Invalid false conclusion
Invalid is where some, or all of the supplied information is actually incorrect, and the conclusion is based in part or completely on this incorrect information.

For example, Bob claims that his area is dry, and the weather report confirms that area is indeed sunny, so one might conclude Bob's area is dry due to weather. However, Bob may be lying about which area, the weather report may be incorrect, it may have recently rained and ergo the assumption it was continuously sunny is false and thus the conclusion is false.

Prevention
It can often be difficult avoiding making false conclusions as there can be various unknown pieces of information, as well as difficulty as to assuring who is telling the truth and who is not. Individuals should not rely on deductive logic but probablistic logic, which encourages lateral thinking and thus the exploration of other alternatives. Do not discourage yourself if you make a valid but false conclusion because the reasons are correct, and the conclusion is just one of many possible alternatives (especially if information was unavailable or withheld at the time).

Tips for preventing false conclusions:
 * Use confirmation to the highest possible tier level.
 * Challenge any unproven assumptions, including what might seem as obvious ones.
 * If evidence is supplied, perform RAVEN on the supplied evidence (investigate citations for reliability and search for counter-evidence ).
 * Use disproving on your own theory or argument to ensure it's reasonably stable.
 * Use RAVEN on the statements of individuals to give a probability of how truthful it might be (if you want to be safe, assume the individuals are lying and use confirmation to verify or deny their statements).

Counteraction
If you suspect someone else is either unintentionally or purposefully making a false conclusion, there are various techniques groups and companies will use to make this happen: There are innumerable ways companies and groups make false conclusions (bias studies that cherry pick only favourable outcomes are a common one) and these are just a few. Becoming familiar with the various types of fallacies allows you to identify when they are used in an argument and thus quickly find the problem (cherry picking can be counteracted by including the non-disclosed information, small sample by supplying demographs that don't fit the cliche, alternative solutions to the two presented in either-or, etc).
 * Cherry picking fallacy . This is often performed by pharmaceutical companies who disregard publishing studies that show their drugs don't work.
 * Small sample fallacy . They take a very small, highly selective demograph and use it to extrapolate to a majority. EG Those stupid loungers, they're so lazy! If we don't make slave labour mandatory everyone in this country will be lazy!
 * Strawman argument . They set-up a misrepresentation of the given reasons, such as a gross generalisation, or they use stereotypes and cliches to represent a baseless position.
 * Either-or fallacy . By presenting one bad option, they may argue there is only one alternative to it. EG 'You're either with us or against us'. See also Robber's Cave experiment.
 * Lesser evil fallacy. A variant of either-or but presented in the sense 'this evil is less than that evil'. EG 'We know our drugs have adverse side-effects, but compared to dying, what's the alternative?' - this might discount better drugs, side-effect mitigation or overgeneralisation (EG it's not as fatal as being exaggerated).

Lying can be difficult to suss out, and confirmation, depth-charging, as well as sub-referencing , are the few ways to deal with it. RAVEN only offers a guide-line as to the probability someone is lying but offers no clarity as to whether or not the statement itself is a lie.