enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. List of fallacies - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    Syllogistic fallacieslogical fallacies that occur in syllogisms. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise. [11] Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative ...

  3. Affirming a disjunct - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct

    Venn diagram for "A or B", with inclusive or (OR) Venn diagram for "A or B", with exclusive or (XOR). The fallacy lies in concluding that one disjunct must be false because the other disjunct is true; in fact they may both be true because "or" is defined inclusively rather than exclusively.

  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. Begging the question - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

    Aristotle's advice in S.E. 27 for resolving fallacies of Begging the Question is brief. If one realizes that one is being asked to concede the original point, one should refuse to do so, even if the point being asked is a reputable belief.

  6. Fallacy of the undistributed middle - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the...

    Also, a related rule of logic is that anything distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in at least one premise. All Z is B; Some Y is Z; Therefore, all Y is B; The middle term—Z—is distributed, but Y is distributed in the conclusion and not in any premise, so this syllogism is invalid.

  7. Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

    In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the ...

  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. Masked-man fallacy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masked-man_fallacy

    In philosophical logic, the masked-man fallacy (also known as the intensional fallacy or epistemic fallacy) [1] is committed when one makes an illicit use of Leibniz's law in an argument. Leibniz's law states that if A and B are the same object, then A and B are indiscernible (that is, they have all the same properties).