Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
The following is a sample of books for further reading, selected for a combination of content, ease of access via the internet, and to provide an indication of published sources that interested readers may review. The titles of some books are self-explanatory.
In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that assert a conclusion's truth value (true or false) without regard to the formal preservation of the truth from the premises; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's consequential desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value.
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.
Although it might be used as a logical fallacy, arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies. In law, the use of the argumentum e contrario finds its footing in the Latin maxim: ubicumque lex voluit dixit, ubi tacuit noluit that runs as follows: If the Legislator wished to say something, he would do that expressly.
For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor. [16] When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is an "appeal to the common man". [17]
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Appeal to the stone is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is an informal fallacy , which means that it relies on inductive reasoning in an argument to justify an assertion . Informal fallacies contain erroneous reasoning in content of the argument and not the form or structure of it, as opposed to formal fallacies , which contain erroneous ...