Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Argumentum a fortiori (literally "argument from the stronger [reason]") (UK: / ˈ ɑː f ɔːr t i ˈ oʊ r i /, [1] US: / ˈ eɪ f ɔːr ʃ i ˈ ɔːr aɪ /) is a form of argumentation that draws upon existing confidence in a proposition to argue in favor of a second proposition that is held to be implicit in, and even more certain than, the first.
This is the argument "a minori ad majus" or "a majori ad minus". In the Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules this rule is divided into two (Nos. 5 and 6), since a distinction is made between a course of reasoning carried to its logical conclusion in the Holy Scriptures themselves ("kal va-chomer meforash") and one merely suggested there ("kal va ...
Explore the category of Latin philosophical phrases on Wikipedia, covering various expressions and their meanings.
Argumentum a fortiori; Argumentum ad antiquitatem; Argumentum ad baculum; Argumentum ad captandum; Argumentum ad consequentiam; Argumentum ad crumenam; Argumentum ad ignorantiam; Argumentum ad lapidem; Argumentum ad lazarum; Argumentum ad logicam; Argumentum ad misericordiam; Argumentum ad novitatem; Argumentum ad populum; Argumentum ad ...
An argumentum ad nauseam is a logical fallacy in which erroneous proof is proffered by prolonged repetition of the argument, i. e., the argument is repeated so many times that persons are "sick of it". ad oculos: to the eyes: i.e., "obvious on sight" or "obvious to anyone that sees it" ad pedem litterae: to the foot of the letter
Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis, argumentum ad antiquitatis) – a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern. [ 88 ] (opposite of appeal to tradition ) Appeal to poverty ( argumentum ad Lazarum ) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy).
Ad hominem – rebutting an argument by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making it rather than the substance of the argument itself. Adianoeta – a phrase carrying two meanings: an obvious meaning and a second, more subtle and ingenious one (more commonly known as double entendre).
There is a debate over whether the argument from ignorance is always fallacious. It is generally accepted that there are only special circumstances in which this argument may not be fallacious. For example, with the presumption of innocence in legal cases, it would make sense to argue: [5] It has not been proven that the defendant is guilty.