Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. [1] This has also been known as the fallacy of lost contrast [2] and the fallacy of the suppressed relative. [3]
Denying the correlative where an attempt is made to introduce another option into a true correlative. Suppressed correlative where the definitions of a correlative are changed so that one of the options includes the other, making one option impossible.
Correlative-based fallacies. Suppressed correlative – a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible (e.g., "I'm not fat because I'm thinner than John."). [18] Definist fallacy – defining a term used in an argument in a biased manner (e.g., using "loaded terms"). The person making the argument expects that the ...
The informal fallacy of denying the correlative is an attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none. It is the opposite of the false dilemma , which is denying other alternatives. Its logical form is Either X or not X, therefore Y.
As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not necessarily imply that the resulting conclusion is false. Statistical methods have been proposed that use correlation as the basis for hypothesis tests for causality, including the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.
Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy. The formal fallacy of affirming a disjunct also known as the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct occurs when a deductive argument takes the following logical form: [1] A or B A Therefore, not B. Or in logical operators:
The supposed leading professional organization, WPATH, is mired in scandal, with evidence from court cases strongly suggesting it has suppressed negative research results.
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 ...