Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Informal fallacies – arguments that are logically unsound for lack of well-grounded premises. [14] Argument from incredulity – when someone can't imagine something to be true, and therefore deems it false, or conversely, holds that it must be true because they can't see how it could be false. [15]
However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises. For example, consider this syllogism, which involves a false premise: If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise) The streets are wet. (premise) Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
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
Deductive reasoning offers the strongest support: the premises ensure the conclusion, meaning that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if all the premises are true. Such an argument is called a valid argument, for example: all men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal. For valid arguments, it is not important ...
The premises in non-deductive arguments offer a certain degree of support for their conclusion but they are defeasible: [5] [12] it is possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Defeasible arguments may still be rationally compelling despite being fallible, so they do not automatically constitute fallacies. [13]
The second premise is an assertion that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is the case. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be the case as well. An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens: If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work. Today is Tuesday.
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.
The argument would be just as valid if both premises and conclusion were false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid: All cups are green. (False) Socrates is a cup. (False) Therefore, Socrates is green. (False)