Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises [105] [106] in violation of fact-value distinction. Naturalistic fallacy (sometimes confused with appeal to nature) is the inverse of moralistic fallacy. Is–ought fallacy [107] – deduce a conclusion about what ought to be, on the basis of what is.
In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning. [1] [2] Some examples are: "People have known for thousands of years that the earth is round. Therefore, the earth is round." "Drugs are illegal so they must be bad for you.
For example, when the conclusion of an argument is very plausible, the subjects may lack the motivation to search for counterexamples among the constructed models. [3] Both mental logic theories and mental model theories assume that there is one general-purpose reasoning mechanism that applies to all forms of deductive reasoning.
For example, inferring the conclusion "no cats are frogs" from the premises "all frogs are amphibians" and "no cats are amphibians" is a sound argument. But even arguments with false premises can be deductively valid, like inferring that "no cats are frogs" from the premises "all frogs are mammals" and "no cats are mammals".
Conclusion/Consequent: All Greeks are mortal. Each of the three distinct terms represents a category. From the example above, humans, mortal, and Greeks: mortal is the major term, and Greeks the minor term. The premises also have one term in common with each other, which is known as the middle term; in this example, humans. Both of the premises ...
Example 1. One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example: If someone lives in San Diego, then they live in California. Joe lives in California. Therefore, Joe lives in San Diego. There are many places to live in California other than San Diego.
Plausible reasoning is a method of deriving new conclusions from given known premises, a method different from the classical syllogistic argumentation methods of Aristotelian two-valued logic. The syllogistic style of argumentation is illustrated by the oft-quoted argument "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, and therefore, Socrates is mortal."
Consider the modal account in terms of the argument given as an example above: All frogs are green. Kermit is a frog. Therefore, Kermit is green. The conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises because we can not imagine a possible world where (a) all frogs are green; (b) Kermit is a frog; and (c) Kermit is not green.