Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy, [1] [14] specifically a fallacy of relevance, [15] [16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). [ 14 ] [ 4 ] [ 9 ] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, [ 12 ] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a ...
This type of ad hominem is not a fallacy.) Circumstantial ad hominem – stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong. [73] Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting ...
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. [1] It is also called argument to logic ( argumentum ad logicam ), the fallacy fallacy , [ 2 ] the fallacist's fallacy , [ 3 ] and the bad reasons fallacy .
For example, "Nobody has ever proved to me there's a God, so I know there is no God". [4] Another version of the appeal to ignorance concludes from the absence of proof against a claim that this claim must be true. Arguments from analogy are also susceptible to fallacies of relevance. An analogy is a comparison between two objects based on ...
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant. [18]: 3 A language-independent fallacy is, for example: "Coriscus is different from Socrates." "Socrates is a man." "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man." [18]: 4
Poisoned-well arguments are sometimes used with preemptive invocations of the association fallacy. In this pattern, an unfavorable attribute is ascribed to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children."
An argument from authority [a] is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument. [1]The argument from authority is a logical fallacy, [2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.
Closely connected with begging the question is the fallacy of circular reasoning (circulus in probando), a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with the conclusion. [26] The individual components of a circular argument can be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and does not lack relevance. However ...