Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ipse dixit (Latin for "he said it himself") is an assertion without proof, or a dogmatic expression of opinion. [1] [2] The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is "just how it is" distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic and immutable. [3]
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy. Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [110] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [111]
Many discussions on Wikipedia often include many statements of opinion that the participant expects to be accepted as fact. This is an example of ipse dixit ("He, himself, said it"), also known as the bare assertion fallacy, a term used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid.
Dogma, in its broadest sense, is any belief held definitively and without the possibility of reform.It may be in the form of an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion, such as Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, [1] or Islam, the positions of a philosopher or philosophical school, such as Stoicism, and political belief systems such as fascism, socialism, progressivism ...
A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument that renders the argument invalid. The flaw can be expressed in the standard system of logic. [ 1 ]
Pryor rejects conservatism and embraces a form of liberalism about perception that he calls "perceptual dogmatism." According to perceptual dogmatism, if S has an experience as if P, S has immediate (fallible) justification for believing P. Immediate justification for P is a justification that does not rest on independent justification for ...
[16] [17] While critical fallibilism strictly opposes dogmatism, critical rationalism is said to require a limited amount of dogmatism. [ 18 ] [ 19 ] Though, even Lakatos himself had been a critical rationalist in the past, when he took it upon himself to argue against the inductivist illusion that axioms can be justified by the truth of their ...
A dogmatic falsificationist ignores that every observation is theory-impregnated. Being theory-impregnated means that it goes beyond direct experience. For example, the statement "Here is a glass of water" goes beyond experience, because the concepts of glass and water "denote physical bodies which exhibit a certain law-like behaviour" (Popper ...