Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A close relative/variant of the appeal to tradition is the argument from inertia or appeal to inertia (sometimes called "Stay the Course"), which states a mistaken status quo, potentially related to existing customs be maintained for its own sake, usually because making a change would require admission of fault in the mistake or because correcting the mistake would require extraordinary effort ...
For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor. [25] When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is an "appeal to the common man". [26]
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick") is the fallacy committed when one makes an appeal to force [1] to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.
Reductio ad absurdum, painting by John Pettie exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1884. In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or apagogical argument, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.
The philosopher Irving Copi defined argumentum ad populum differently from an appeal to popular opinion itself, [19] as an attempt to rouse the "emotions and enthusiasms of the multitude". [19] [20] Douglas N. Walton argues that appeals to popular opinion can be logically valid in some cases, such as in political dialogue within a democracy. [21]
Appeal to the stone is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is an informal fallacy , which means that it relies on inductive reasoning in an argument to justify an assertion . Informal fallacies contain erroneous reasoning in content of the argument and not the form or structure of it, as opposed to formal fallacies , which contain erroneous ...
In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that assert a conclusion's truth value (true or false) without regard to the formal preservation of the truth from the premises; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's consequential desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value.
Although it might be used as a logical fallacy, arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies. In law, the use of the argumentum e contrario finds its footing in the Latin maxim: ubicumque lex voluit dixit, ubi tacuit noluit that runs as follows: If the Legislator wished to say something, he would do that expressly.