Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
He is the author of Attacking Faulty Reasoning, a textbook on logical fallacies.The book defines and explains 60 of the most commonly committed fallacies. It also gives specific suggestions about how to address or to "attack" each fallacy when it is encountered. [4]
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 fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies. Because of their variety, fallacies are challenging to classify. They can be classified by their structure (formal fallacies) or content (informal fallacies). Informal fallacies, the larger ...
An example is a probabilistically valid instance of the formally invalid argument form of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. [12] Thus, "fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments, [13] because for most fallacious instances of an argument form, a similar but non-fallacious instance can be ...
Other idioms for the slippery slope fallacy are the thin edge of the wedge, domino fallacy (as a form of domino effect argument) or dam burst, and various other terms that are sometimes considered distinct argument types or reasoning flaws, such as the camel's nose in the tent, parade of horribles, boiling frog, and snowball effect.
In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy [a] is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure. Propositional logic, [2] for example, is concerned with the meanings of sentences and the relationships between them. It focuses on the role of logical operators, called propositional connectives, in determining whether a ...
The term naturalistic fallacy is sometimes used to label the problematic inference of an ought from an is (the is–ought problem). [3] Michael Ridge relevantly elaborates that "[t]he intuitive idea is that evaluative conclusions require at least one evaluative premise—purely factual premises about the naturalistic features of things do not entail or even support evaluative conclusions."
For example: "Every time I score an A on the test its a sunny day. Therefore the sunny day causes me to score well on the test." Here is the example the two events may coincide or correlate, but have no causal connection. [2] Fallacies of questionable cause include: Circular cause and consequence [citation needed]