Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. . That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attemp
Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy. Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. Nirvana fallacy (perfect-solution fallacy) – solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
The description of the fallacy in this form is attributed to British philosopher Antony Flew, who wrote, in his 1966 book God & Philosophy, . In this ungracious move a brash generalization, such as No Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, when faced with falsifying facts, is transformed while you wait into an impotent tautology: if ostensible Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, then this is ...
A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument that renders the argument invalid. The flaw can be expressed in the standard system of logic. [ 1 ]
Special pleading also often resembles the "appeal to" logical fallacies. [8] [9] In medieval philosophy, it was not presumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts a presumption of existential import. [citation needed] [further explanation needed]
The South Goalposts, Part 1: The crossbar. Somehow, fans managed to get the south goalpost — the one McGrath’s kick had sailed through — up and out of the ground, gooseneck and all.
The goalposts came down again, but this time, Tennessee security was ready. They didn't leave the stadium this time, didn't end up in the river. This win wasn't expected, per se, but it also didn ...
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). [1]