If the street is wet, is it raining? The fallacy of affirming the consequent and the misuse of valid statistical evidence

In this Debates and Perspectives article, I take the perspective in which there is past research that has misused valid statistical evidence by incorporating it into the reasoning known in formal logic as the “fallacy of affirming the consequent.” I explain what the fallacy is, provide details on how three published studies commit it, distinguish between valid statistical evidence and its misuse, and mention the logic of modus tollens as an alternative to the logic of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I direct criticism at the research paradigm that the authors of the studies are practitioners of. A ramification for past research that has misused valid statistical evidence by incorporating it into the fallacy of affirming the consequent is that it needs to be re-examined and then reconducted using the logic of modus tollens.