Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Cognitive bias mitigation is the prevention and reduction of the negative effects of cognitive biases – unconscious, automatic influences on human judgment and decision making that reliably produce reasoning errors. Coherent, comprehensive theories of cognitive bias mitigation are lacking.
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.
(In law, this is not a defense as such but an argument that the case should not be heard at all.) Failure to state a cause of action or other insufficiencies of pleading. Any of the affirmative defenses. Defenses conferred by statute – such as a statute of limitations or the statute of frauds.
Even where case law speaks of a "duty to mitigate", the duty has been cited as "not a demanding one". [4] The issue of what is reasonable is especially contentious in personal injury cases where the plaintiff refuses medical advice. This can be seen in cases such as Janiak v. Ippolito. [5] The antonym of mitigation is aggravation.
Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one's own arguments. It includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts.
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised. [23] Often paired with moving the goalposts (see below), as when an argument is challenged using a common definition of a term in the argument, and the arguer presents a different definition of the term and thereby demands different evidence to debunk the argument.
The invincible ignorance fallacy, [1] also known as argument by pigheadedness, [2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used ...
The floodgates principle, or the floodgates argument, is a legal principle which is sometimes applied by judges to restrict or limit the right to make claims for damages because of a concern that permitting a claimant to recover in such situations might open the metaphorical "floodgates" to large numbers of claims and lawsuits. [1]