Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument [1] [2] that may appear to be well-reasoned if unnoticed. The term was introduced in the Western intellectual tradition by the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis. [3]
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies. Because of their variety, fallacies are challenging to classify.
Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments [1] is a textbook on logical fallacies by T. Edward Damer that has been used for many years in a number of college courses on logic, critical thinking, argumentation, and philosophy. It explains 60 of the most commonly committed fallacies.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position. For example: Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context ).
The association fallacy is a formal logical fallacy that asserts that properties of one thing must also be properties of another thing if both things belong to the same group.
He is the author of Attacking Faulty Reasoning, a textbook on logical fallacies.The book defines and explains 60 of the most commonly committed fallacies. It also gives specific suggestions about how to address or to "attack" each fallacy when it is encountered. [4]
Abductive reasoning; Appeal to consequences; Confusion of the inverse; Denying the antecedent; Fallacies of illicit transference; Fallacy of the single cause; Fallacy of the undistributed middle; Modus ponens; Modus tollens; Necessity and sufficiency; Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Appeal to the stone utilizes inductive reasoning to derive its argument. Formal fallacies use deductive reasoning and formal properties to structure an argument and inductive arguments do not use this structure. Inductive reasoning is reasoning with uncertain conclusions because of inferences made about a specific situation, object, or event. [7]