Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises [102] [103] in violation of fact-value distinction. Naturalistic fallacy (sometimes confused with appeal to nature) is the inverse of moralistic fallacy. Is–ought fallacy [104] – deduce a conclusion about what ought to be, on the basis of what is.
Deductive reasoning. Appearance. Deductive reasoning is the process of drawing valid inferences. An inference is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. For example, the inference from the premises "all men are mortal" and " Socrates ...
Logical reasoning is concerned with the correctness of arguments. A key distinction is between deductive and non-deductive arguments. Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion ...
Begging the question. In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some ...
Jumping to conclusions (officially the jumping conclusion bias, often abbreviated as JTC, and also referred to as the inference -observation confusion[1]) is a psychological term referring to a communication obstacle where one "judge [s] or decide [s] something without having all the facts; to reach unwarranted conclusions". [2][3] In other ...
Inductive reasoning is any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations. [1] [2] This article is concerned with the inductive reasoning other than deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain given the premises are correct; in contrast, the truth of the ...
Formal fallacy. In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy[a] is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. [2] It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still ...
Leibniz. In Leibniz's works, the argument about the best of all possible worlds appears in the context of his theodicy, a word that he coined by combining the Greek words Theos, 'God', and dikē, 'justice'. [2] Its object was to solve the problem of evil, that is, to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering in the world with the existence ...