|
Fallacy Fallacy
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its ''conclusion'' must be false. It is also called argument to logic (''argumentum ad logicam''), the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy. Form It has the general argument form: :If P, then Q. :P is a fallacious argument. :Therefore, Q is false. Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false. That the argument is fallacious only means that the argument cannot succeed in proving its consequent.John Woods''The death of argument: fallacies in agent based reasoning'' Springer 2004, pp. XXIII–XXV But showing how one argument in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Formal Fallacy
In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (; Latin for " tdoes not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.Harry J. Gensler, ''The A to Z of Logic'' (2010) p. 74. Rowman & Littlefield, It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic. While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g., affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, "''non ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Begging The Question
In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: ') is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. For example: * "Green is the best color because it is the greenest of all colors" This statement claims that the color green is the best because it is the greenest – which it presupposes is the best. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent.Herrick (2000) 248. History The original phrase used by Aristotle from which ''begging the question'' descends is: τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς (or sometimes ἐν ἀρχῇ) αἰτεῖν, "asking for the initial thing". Aristotle's intended meaning is closely tied to the type of dialectical argument he discusses in his '' Topics'', book VIII: a formalized ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Existential Comics
Existential Comics is a webcomic about philosophy created by Corey Mohler, a software engineer in Portland, Oregon. Mohler, who has an amateur interest in the subject rather than an academic background, created the comic in December 2013 in an attempt to help popularize philosophy through comedy. The comic tends to depict philosophers of different backgrounds and often has them interacting and arguing with each other. It also gives textual descriptions of the jokes and associated philosophy to help educate readers. In May 2018 Mohler once called Elon Musk "the villain from '' Atlas Shrugged''". Musk responded during SpaceX's launch of a Falcon 9 rocket. Mohler later published a comic about the incident. Philosophers The comic has covered over 120 philosophers, examining a wide variety of thought from Pre-Socratic philosophy to contemporary philosophy. Mohler has described both Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir as his favorite philosophers. Alongside existentialism, Mohler has als ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Vacuous Truth
In mathematics and logic, a vacuous truth is a conditional or universal statement (a universal statement that can be converted to a conditional statement) that is true because the antecedent cannot be satisfied. For example, the statement "she does not own a cell phone" will imply that the statement "all of her cell phones are turned off" will be assigned a truth value. Also, the statement "all of her cell phones are turned ''on''" would also be vacuously true, as would the conjunction of the two: "all of her cell phones are turned on ''and'' turned off", which would otherwise be incoherent and false. For that reason, it is sometimes said that a statement is vacuously true because it is meaningless. More formally, a relatively well-defined usage refers to a conditional statement (or a universal conditional statement) with a false antecedent. One example of such a statement is "if Tokyo is in France, then the Eiffel Tower is in Bolivia". Such statements are considered vacuous ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Straw Man
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects. Straw man tactics in the United Kingdom may also be known as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name, where patrons throw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top. Structure Th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Reductio Ad Absurdum
In logic, (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or ''apagogical arguments'', is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. This argument form traces back to Ancient Greek philosophy and has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate. Examples The "absurd" conclusion of a ''reductio ad absurdum'' argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show: * The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, since Earth assumed to be finite in extent, we would find people falling off the edge. * There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one. The first example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses. The second example is a mathematical proof ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Fallacies
In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (; Latin for " tdoes not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.Harry J. Gensler, ''The A to Z of Logic'' (2010) p. 74. Rowman & Littlefield, It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic. While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g., affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, "''non ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits. In '' The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'' (1995) it is asserted that the term originated in Morris Raphael Cohen and Ernest Nagel's book ''Logic and Scientific Method'' (1934). However, in a book review published in ''The Nation'' in 1926, Mortimer J. Adler complained that ''The ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argumentation Theory
Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, argumentation theory, includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real-world settings. Argumentation includes various forms of dialogue such as deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures. It also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal, and didactic dialogue used for teaching. This discipline also studies the means by which people can express and rationally resolve or at least manage their disagreements. Argumentation is a daily occurrence, such as in public debate, science, and law. For example in law, in courts b ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument From Ignorance
Argument from ignorance (from la, argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ''ignorance'' represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century. Examples * "I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ad Lapidem
Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence. Appeal to the stone is a Fallacy, logical fallacy. Specifically, it is an Fallacy#Informal fallacy, informal fallacy, which means that it relies on inductive reasoning in an argument to justify an Proof by assertion, assertion. Informal fallacies contain erroneous reasoning in content of the argument and not the form or structure of it, as opposed to Fallacy#Formal fallacy, formal fallacies, which contain erroneous reasoning in argument form. Example : Speaker A: Germ theory of disease, Infectious diseases are caused by tiny organisms that are not visible to unaided eyesight. : Speake ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
William Lycan
William G. Lycan (; born September 26, 1945) is an American philosopher and professor emeritus at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was formerly the William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor. Since 2011, Lycan is also distinguished visiting professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, where he continues to research, teach, and advise graduate students. Education and career William Lycan received his B.A. from Amherst College in 1966, where he also worked as a teaching assistant in the Music department. His honors thesis was on "Noam Chomsky's Investigation of Syntax." He went on to attend graduate school at the University of Chicago, where he received an M.A. in 1967 and a Ph.D. in 1970. His doctoral dissertation was on "Persons, Criteria, and Materialism." Lycan taught for twelve years at Ohio State University, before joining the faculty at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in 1982, where he is now emeritus. He won the Cla ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
