Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
These conditionals differ in both form and meaning. The indicative conditional uses the present tense form "owns" and therefore conveys that the speaker is agnostic about whether Sally in fact owns a donkey. The counterfactual example uses the fake tense form "owned" in the "if" clause and the past-inflected modal "would" in the "then" clause ...
The term counterfactual is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "contrary to fact". [2] A counterfactual thought occurs when a person modifies a factual prior event and then assesses the consequences of that change. [3]
This is the problem of induction. Suppose we want to put the hypothesis that all swans are white to the test. We come across a white swan. We cannot validly argue (or induce) from "here is a white swan" to "all swans are white"; doing so would require a logical fallacy such as, for example, affirming the consequent. [3]
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy. Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [110] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [111]
Mind projection fallacy – Informal fallacy that the way one sees the world reflects the way the world really is; Motivated reasoning – Using emotionally-biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions; Observational error, also known as Systematic bias – Difference between a measured value of a quantity and its true value
investigations that do or do not provide a potentially falsifying test of the hypothesis. [7] Evidence contrary to a hypothesis is itself philosophically problematic. Such evidence is called a falsification of the hypothesis. However, under the theory of confirmation holism it is always possible to save a given hypothesis from falsification ...
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance, [a] is an informal fallacy where something is claimed to be true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. The fallacy is committed when one asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false ...
According to Marxist theory, such a contradiction can be found, for example, in the fact that: (a) enormous wealth and productive powers coexist alongside: (b) extreme poverty and misery; (c) the existence of (a) being contrary to the existence of (b).