Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics. [1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions. [2]
Faulty generalization – reaching a conclusion from weak premises. Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored. [50] No true Scotsman (aka appeal to purity) – makes a generalization true by changing the generalization to exclude a counterexample. [51]
A special subclass of the informal fallacies is the set of faulty generalizations, also known as inductive fallacies. Here, the most important issue concerns inductive strength or methodology (for example, statistical inference). In the absence of sufficient evidence, drawing conclusions based on induction is unwarranted and fallacious.
This explains, for example, why arguments that are accidentally valid are still somehow flawed: because the arguer himself lacks a good reason to believe the conclusion. [ 9 ] The fallacy of begging the question , on this perspective, is a fallacy because it fails to expand our knowledge by providing independent justification for its conclusion.
A false analogy is an informal fallacy, or a faulty instance, of the argument from analogy. An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to examine analogical reasoning in detail. [2]
The existential fallacy, or existential instantiation, is a formal fallacy.In the existential fallacy, one presupposes that a class has members when one is not supposed to do so; i.e., when one should not assume existential import.
In logic and mathematics, proof by example (sometimes known as inappropriate generalization) is a logical fallacy whereby the validity of a statement is illustrated through one or more examples or cases—rather than a full-fledged proof. [1] [2] The structure, argument form and formal form of a proof by example generally proceeds as follows ...
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; [1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. [2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or ...