Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Secundum quid (also called secundum quid et simpliciter, meaning "[what is true] in a certain respect and [what is true] absolutely") is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer fails to recognize the difference between rules of thumb (soft generalizations, heuristics that hold true as a general rule but leave room for exceptions) and categorical propositions, rules that hold ...
The fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) is an informal fallacy where a general rule is applied to an exceptional case. The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact that one or more accidental features of the specific case make it an exception to the rule.
secundum quid et simpliciter [what is true] according to something, [is true] absolutely "unqualified generalization" in Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations [5] sed ipse spiritus postulat pro nobis, gemitibus inenarrabilibus: But the same Spirit intercedes incessantly for us, with inexpressible groans: Romans 8:26: sed terrae graviora manent
A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid; Ad antiquitatem; Ad hominem; Ad infinitum; Ad nauseam; Ad personam; Argumentum a fortiori; Argumentum ad antiquitatem;
dicto simpliciter [from] a maxim, simply: I.e. "from a rule without exception." Short for a dicto simpliciter, the a is often dropped because it is confused with the English indefinite article. A dicto simpliciter occurs when an acceptable exception is ignored or eliminated. For example, the appropriateness of using opiates is contingent on ...
This fallacy is similar to the slippery slope, where the opposition claims that if a restricted action under debate is allowed, such as allowing people with glaucoma to use medical marijuana, then the action will by stages become acceptable in general, such as eventually everyone being allowed to use marijuana.
Chapter 13 deals with secundum quid et simpliciter. Chapter 14 deals with Ignoratio elenchi or irrelevant thesis. Chapter 15 deals with begging the question (petitio principii). Chapter 16 deals with false cause (non-causam ut causam) Chapter 17 deals with the fallacy of many questions (plures interrogationes ut unam facere)>
Horace, Carmina 2/10:19-20. The same image appears in a fable of Phaedrus. Ne quid nimis: Nothing in excess nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam: Endless money forms the sinews of war: In war, it is essential to be able to purchase supplies and to pay troops (as Napoleon put it, "An army marches on its stomach"). nihil ad rem: nothing to do with ...