Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Good books on critical thinking commonly contain sections on fallacies, and some may be listed below. DiCarlo, Christopher (2011). How to Become a Really Good Pain in the Ass: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Asking the Right Questions. Prometheus Books. ISBN 9781616143978. Engel, S. Morris (1994). Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
Whately divided fallacies into two groups: logical and material. According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Material fallacies are not logical errors because the conclusion follows from the premises. He then divided the logical group into two groups: purely logical and semi-logical.
Part of understanding fallacies involves going beyond logic to empirical psychology in order to explain why there is a tendency to commit or fall for the fallacy in question. [9] [1] In the case of the false dilemma, the tendency to simplify reality by ordering it through either-or-statements may play an important role.
Fallacies based on correlatives include: [1] False dilemma or false correlative. Here something which is not a correlative is treated as a correlative, excluding some other possibility. Denying the correlative where an attempt is made to introduce another option into a true correlative. Suppressed correlative
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_logical_fallacies&oldid=147534755"
The distinction between formal and informal fallacies is opposed by deductivists, who hold that deductive invalidity is the reason for all fallacies. [18] One way to explain that some fallacies do not seem to be deductively invalid is to hold that they contain various hidden assumptions, as is common for natural language arguments.
As it stands, the list cites one source in the definition of a "formal fallacy". I particularly think, at this point, that the idea of a "list of fallacies" is hopelessly flawed, biased, and unencyclopedic, and the best approach to deal with it is to, perhaps, merge any worthwhile content back into a topical article.