Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Other idioms for the slippery slope fallacy are the thin edge of the wedge, domino fallacy (as a form of domino effect argument) or dam burst, and various other terms that are sometimes considered distinct argument types or reasoning flaws, such as the camel's nose in the tent, parade of horribles, boiling frog, and snowball effect.
The historical fallacy is a logical fallacy originally described by philosopher John Dewey in The Psychological Review in 1896. Most simply put, the fallacy occurs when a person believes that results occur only because of the process taken to obtain them.
In the field of military history, historians sometimes use what is known as the "fog of war technique" in hopes of avoiding the historian's fallacy. In this approach, the actions and decisions of the historical subject (such as a military commander) are evaluated primarily on the basis of what that person knew at the time, and not on future ...
However, it could be seen as a variation of the very same naturalistic fallacy; the difference between them could be considered pragmatical, depending on the intentions of the person who uses it: naturalistic fallacy if the user wants to justify existing social practices with the argument that they are natural; moralistic fallacy if the user ...
The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way", and is a logical fallacy. [2] [3] The opposite of an appeal to tradition is an appeal to novelty, in which one claims that an idea is superior just because it is new. An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that may not be necessarily true:
Even non-deductive arguments can be said to be fallacious: for example, an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality. But "since deductive arguments depend on formal properties and inductive arguments don't, formal fallacies apply only to deductive arguments". [5]
Some troops leave the battlefield injured. Others return from war with mental wounds. Yet many of the 2 million Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffer from a condition the Defense Department refuses to acknowledge: Moral injury.
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick") is the fallacy committed when one makes an appeal to force [1] to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.