Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies.
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument [1] [2] that may appear to be well-reasoned if unnoticed. The term was introduced in the Western intellectual tradition by the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis .
A false dilemma is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. [1] [2] [3] In its most simple form, called the fallacy of bifurcation, all but two alternatives are excluded. A fallacy is an argument, i.e. a series of premises together with a conclusion, that is unsound, i.e. not
G. I. Joe fallacy, the tendency to think that knowing about cognitive bias is enough to overcome it. [65] Gambler's fallacy, the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. The fallacy arises from an erroneous conceptualization of the law of large numbers. For example, "I've ...
Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments [1] is a textbook on logical fallacies by T. Edward Damer that has been used for many years in a number of college courses on logic, critical thinking, argumentation, and philosophy. It explains 60 of the most commonly committed fallacies.
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. [1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."
Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained and that the streets are wet. This does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position. For example: Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context). [3]