Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise. Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
Argument from 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. [1] It is also called argument to logic ( argumentum ad logicam ), the fallacy fallacy, [2] the fallacist's fallacy, [3] and the bad reasons fallacy. [4]
In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur [1] ( / ˌnɒn ˈsɛkwɪtər /; Latin for 'it does 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. [2]
A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur ( Latin for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument that renders the argument invalid. The flaw can be expressed in the standard system of logic. [1] Such an argument is always considered to be wrong.
Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy, [1] [14] specifically a fallacy of relevance, [15] [16] and is similar to an argument from authority ( argumentum ad verecundiam ). [14] [4] [9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, [12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a ...
Argumentum ad baculum. Argumentum ad baculum ( Latin for "argument to the cudgel " or " appeal to the stick ") is the fallacy committed when one makes an appeal to force [1] to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. [2] [3] One participates in argumentum ad baculum when one emphasizes the negative consequences of holding the contrary ...
In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion ( Latin: petītiō principiī) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not ...
Examples. The name of the fallacy comes from the example: Premise 1: I know who Claus is. Premise 2: I do not know who the masked man is. Conclusion: Therefore, Claus is not the masked man. The premises may be true and the conclusion false if Claus is the masked man and the speaker does not know that. Thus the argument is a fallacious one.