Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. [1] This has also been known as the fallacy of lost contrast [2] and the fallacy of the suppressed relative. [3]
A correlative conjunction is a relationship between two statements where one must be false and the other true. In formal logic this is known as the exclusive or relationship; traditionally, terms between which this relationship exists have been called contradictories .
Correlative-based fallacies. Suppressed correlative – a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible (e.g., "I'm not fat because I'm thinner than John."). [18] Definist fallacy – defining a term used in an argument in a biased manner (e.g., using "loaded terms"). The person making the argument expects that the ...
[3] That is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of the material conditional: if p then q symbolized as p → q. That is, "if circumstance p is true, then q follows." In that sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation."
The observational interpretation fallacy is the cognitive bias where association identified in observational studies are misinterpreted as causal relationships. This misinterpretation often influences clinical guidelines, public health policies, and medical practices, sometimes to the detriment of patient safety and resource allocation.
Some scholars classify cherry-picking as a fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. [3] Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to reality.
The continuum fallacy (also known as the fallacy of the beard, [44] [45] line-drawing fallacy, or decision-point fallacy [46]) is an informal fallacy related to the sorites paradox. Both fallacies cause one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be.
The fallacy does not mean that every single instance of sense data or testimony must be considered a fallacy, only that anecdotal evidence, when improperly used in logic, results in a fallacy. Since anecdotal evidence can result in different kinds of logical fallacies, it is important to understand when this fallacy is being used and how it is ...