Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise. [11] Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative ...
List of fallacies with clear examples, infidels.org; Interactive Syllogistic Machine A web based syllogistic machine for exploring fallacies, figures, and modes of syllogisms. Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate, csun.edu; Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies, onegoodmove.org; Explain fallacies, what they are and how to avoid them ...
G. I. Joe fallacy, the tendency to think that knowing about cognitive bias is enough to overcome it. [65] Gambler's fallacy, the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. The fallacy arises from an erroneous conceptualization of the law of large numbers. For example, "I've ...
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. [1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."
Logical fallacy: Since most of the green is touching red, and most of the red is touching blue, most of the green must be touching blue. This, however, is a false statement. In the strictest sense, a logical fallacy is the incorrect application of a valid logical principle or an application of a nonexistent principle: Most Rimnars are Jornars.
Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments [1] is a textbook on logical fallacies by T. Edward Damer that has been used for many years in a number of college courses on logic, critical thinking, argumentation, and philosophy. It explains 60 of the most commonly committed fallacies.
An argument from authority [a] is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument. [1]The argument from authority is a logical fallacy, [2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.
For example, the fallacy of begging the question is a fallacy because it fails to provide independent justification for its conclusion, even though it is deductively valid. [151] In this sense, logical normativity consists in epistemic success or rationality. [149] The Bayesian approach is one example of an epistemic approach. [152]