Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In logic and mathematics, proof by example (sometimes known as inappropriate generalization) is a logical fallacy whereby the validity of a statement is illustrated through one or more examples or cases—rather than a full-fledged proof. [1][2] The structure, argument form and formal form of a proof by example generally proceeds as follows ...
List of paradoxes. Outline of public relations – Overview of and topical guide to public relations. Map–territory relation – Relationship between an object and a representation of that object (confusing map with territory, menu with meal) Mathematical fallacy – Certain type of mistaken proof.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; [ 1 ] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. [ 2 ] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof ...
The fallacy lies in a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection. [2] Post hoc ergo propter hoc is an easy fallacy to detect when it is blatant, but even the best of scientists and statesmen are occasionally misled by it.
A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics. [1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions. [2] For example, one may generalize about all people or all ...
Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy, [1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance, [15][16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). [14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, [12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority ...
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [ 1 ] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having ...
Not to be confused with Calling 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 ...