enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Double-barreled question - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-barreled_question

    [2] [3] [4] This may result in inaccuracies in the attitudes being measured for the question, as the respondent can answer only one of the two questions, and cannot indicate which one is being answered. [5] Many double-barreled questions can be detected by the existence of the grammatical conjunction "and" in them.

  3. List of fallacies - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    Logical Fallacies, Literacy Education Online; Informal Fallacies, Texas State University page on informal fallacies; Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies (mirror) Visualization: Rhetological Fallacies, Information is Beautiful; Master List of Logical Fallacies, University of Texas at El Paso; Fallacies, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

  4. Fallacy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

    Whately divided fallacies into two groups: logical and material. According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Material fallacies are not logical errors because the conclusion follows from the premises. He then divided the logical group into two groups: purely logical and semi-logical.

  5. List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

    Overconfidence effect, a tendency to have excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time. [5] [44] [45] [46] Planning fallacy, the tendency for people to underestimate the time it will take them to complete a ...

  6. Fallacy of four terms - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms

    An argument that commits the ambiguous middle fallacy blurs the line between formal and informal (material) fallacies, however it is usually considered an informal fallacy because the argument's form appears valid. [5]

  7. Confusion of the inverse - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_of_the_inverse

    Confusion of the inverse, also called the conditional probability fallacy or the inverse fallacy, is a logical fallacy whereupon a conditional probability is equated with its inverse; that is, given two events A and B, the probability of A happening given that B has happened is assumed to be about the same as the probability of B given A, when there is actually no evidence for this assumption.

  8. Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

    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."

  9. List of paradoxes - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes

    False positive paradox: A test that is accurate the vast majority of the time could show you have a disease, but the probability that you actually have it could still be tiny. Grice's paradox: Shows that the exact meaning of statements involving conditionals and probabilities is more complicated than may be obvious on casual examination.