Name That Logical Fallacy:
I was surprised that "fallacy of the single cause" (or "causal oversimplification") wasn't mentioned in regards to this, or how it was distinguished from "asserting the consequence" ("affirming the consequent") in this case—which I would love to hear.
More surprising still was the information at the bottom of this site
regarding the fallacy in question:
Bayes' Theorem can be seen as a probabilistic variation on Affirming The Consequent in which the argument is valid. It tells us that the probability of A given B is equal to the probability of A and B divided by the probability of B. If A implies B, then the probability of A and B equals the probability of A. Therefore, as long as B was not certain to be true, the discovery of the truth of B increases our assessment of the probability of the truth of A.
Once again, a bit of SBM*
has quietly snuck into SGU. I wish the discussion could have been longer.*
or for that matter, science-based anything-needing-statistics