(1) If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.
(2) There goes Fred to have a word with the boss.
Therefore:
(3) Fred wants to get me sacked.
You claim …
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is supported
Whereas I’d claim …
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is conclusively proven.
Words mean things.
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is conclusively proven.
Words mean things."
Indeed they do.
Not only is P not conclusively proven by the fallacy of affirming the consequent, but P is not supported by the use of the fallacy either. Formal fallacies of this form are always fallacies because the conclusion is a non sequitur.
Trying to narrow the focus of the conclusion such that you think you can apply the fallacious logic without committing the error of the fallacy is simply amazing. It is fascinating to watch the lengths that evos will go through to cling to their fallacious logic.