Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber."
The titles of some books are self-explanatory. Good books on critical thinking commonly contain sections on fallacies, and some may be listed below. DiCarlo, Christopher (2011). How to Become a Really Good Pain in the Ass: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Asking the Right Questions. Prometheus Books. ISBN 9781616143978. Engel, S. Morris (1994).
In Part III, Ockham deals with the definition and division of consequences, and provides a treatment of Aristotle's Topical rules. [1] According to Ockham a consequence is a conditional proposition, composed of two categorical propositions by the terms 'if' and 'then'. For example, 'if a man runs, then God exists' (Si homo currit, Deus est). [2]
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant. [18]: 3 A language-independent fallacy is, for example: "Coriscus is different from Socrates." "Socrates is a man." "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man." [18]: 4
The fallacies Aristotle identifies in Chapter 4 (formal fallacies) and 5 (informal fallacies) of this book are the following: Fallacies in the language or formal fallacies (in dictionem): Equivocation; Amphiboly; Composition; Division; Accent; Figure of speech or form of expression; Fallacies not in the language or informal fallacies (extra ...
The first example is of a visitor to Oxford. The visitor, upon viewing the colleges and library , reportedly inquires, "But where is the University?" The visitor's mistake is presuming that a University is part of the category "units of physical infrastructure", rather than that of an "institution".
Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena. The opposite, slothful induction , is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence ...
A fallacy in argumentation that targets the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. ad ignorantium A logical fallacy where a proposition is considered true because it has not been proven false or vice versa. ad infinitum An argument or process that is supposed to continue indefinitely, without ever reaching an end or conclusion.