Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Which is the assertion that is made by (i.e., the meaning of) a true or false declarative sentence. [1] [2] In the latter case, a (declarative) sentence is just one way of expressing an underlying statement. A statement is what a sentence means, it is the notion or idea that a sentence expresses, i.e., what it represents.
An argument that actually contains premises that are all the same as the assertion is thus proof by assertion. This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. [1] Modern politics contains many examples of proofs by assertion.
This applies in disagreements and arguments, both to content and sources. Asserting something without explanation or demonstration is known as an empty assertion. IRL, we can often see that saying something doesn't make it so: no matter how much an adult wishes to be six foot five (or five foot six), one is stuck with the height one is at.
A rhetorical question may be intended as a challenge. The question is often difficult or impossible to answer. In the example, "What have the Romans ever done for us?" (Monty Python's Life of Brian) the question functions as a negative assertion. It is intended to mean "The Romans have never done anything for us!"
The truth claim arises in each case from the form of the declarative sentence, and when the latter lacks its usual force, e.g., in the mouth of an actor upon the stage, even the sentence "The thought that 5 is a prime number is true" contains only a thought, and indeed the same thought as the simple "5 is a prime number."
John has therefore performed a locutionary act. He has also done at least two other things. He has asked a question, and he has elicited an answer from Sue. Asking a question is an example of what Austin called an illocutionary act. Other examples would be making an assertion, giving an order, and promising to do something.
Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning. [1] [2]
Escalation of commitment, irrational escalation, or sunk cost fallacy, where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. G. I. Joe fallacy, the tendency to think that knowing about cognitive bias is enough to overcome it. [65]