Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The two things compared in a figurative analogy are not obviously comparable in most respects. [2] Metaphors and similes are two types of figurative analogies. In the course of analogical reasoning, figurative analogies become weak if the disanalogies of the entities being compared are relevant—in the same way that literal analogies become ...
Analogy is a comparison or correspondence between two things (or two groups of things) because of a third element that they are considered to share. [1]In logic, it is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction.
When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, some authors dub it circulus in probando ' reasoning in a circle ', [14] [22] or more commonly, circular reasoning. Begging the question is not considered a formal fallacy (an argument that is defective because it uses an incorrect deductive step ).
A false analogy is an informal fallacy, or a faulty instance, of the argument from analogy. An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects . The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill , who was one of the first individuals to examine analogical reasoning in detail. [ 2 ]
False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited. [54] Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample ...
Chiasmus – a figure of speech consisting of the contrasting of two structurally parallel syntactic phrases arranged "cross-wise", i.e., in such a way that the second is in reverse order from the first. Chreia – an anecdote (a deed, a saying, a situation) involving a well-known figure. Circumlocution – use of many words where a few would do.
The types of logical reasoning differ concerning the exact norms they use as well as the certainty of the conclusion they arrive at. [1] [15] Deductive reasoning offers the strongest support and implies its conclusion with certainty, like mathematical proofs. For non-deductive reasoning, the premises make the conclusion more likely but do not ...
Another form of argument is known as modus tollens (commonly abbreviated MT). In this form, you start with the same first premise as with modus ponens. However, the second part of the premise is denied, leading to the conclusion that the first part of the premise should be denied as well.