Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber."
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; [1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. [2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or ...
Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false. [ 5 ] Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities , without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities .
The book describes 19 logical fallacies using a set of illustrations, in which various cartoon characters participate. The online version of the book was published under a Creative Commons license on July 15, 2013. [1] The print edition was released on December 5, 2013 and is also shared under a Creative Commons license.
Closely connected with begging the question is the fallacy of circular reasoning (circulus in probando), a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with the conclusion. [26] The individual components of a circular argument can be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and does not lack relevance. However ...
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant. [18]: 3 A language-independent fallacy is, for example: "Coriscus is different from Socrates." "Socrates is a man." "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man." [18]: 4
The name of the fallacy comes from the example: Premise 1: I know who Claus is. Premise 2: I do not know who the masked man is. Conclusion: Therefore, Claus is not the masked man. The premises may be true and the conclusion false if Claus is the masked man and the speaker does not know that. Thus the argument is a fallacious one. [clarification ...
This argument has been considered a logical fallacy since its introduction by John Locke and Richard Whately. [9] In particular, this is a form of genetic fallacy; in which the conclusion about the validity of a statement is justified by appealing to the characteristics of the person who is speaking, such as in the ad hominem fallacy. [10]