Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. [1]
[2] [3] [4] One participates in argumentum ad baculum when one emphasizes the negative consequences of holding the contrary position, regardless of the contrary position's truth value—particularly when the argument-maker himself causes (or threatens to cause) those negative consequences. It is a special case of the appeal to consequences.
A fallacy of induction happens when a conclusion is drawn from premises that only lightly support it. Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is more important; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy.
continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard) No. 21. ad nauseam: "argumentum ad nauseam" or "argument from repetition" or "argumentum ad infinitum" No. 25. style over substance fallacy; No. 28. appeal to authority; No. 31. thought-terminating cliché; No. 36. special pleading; No. 37. appeal to consequences; No. 38. appeal to motive
For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time. [5] [43] [44] [45] Planning fallacy, the tendency for people to underestimate the time it will take them to complete a given task. [46]
[citation needed] When the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects, this is called the slippery slope fallacy. This is a type of informal fallacy , and is a subset of continuum fallacy , in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor. [23] 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". [24]
However, it could be seen as a variation of the very same naturalistic fallacy; the difference between them could be considered pragmatical, depending on the intentions of the person who uses it: naturalistic fallacy if the user wants to justify existing social practices with the argument that they are natural; moralistic fallacy if the user ...