Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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 ...
Argument from ignorance. Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. The fallacy is committed when one asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition ...
Mind projection fallacy – assuming that a statement about an object describes an inherent property of the object, rather than a personal perception. Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction (e.g.: inferring is from ought).
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
Proof by example. 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 ...
In this example, a valid conclusion would be: ~P or Q. The name denying the antecedent derives from the premise "not P", which denies the "if" clause (antecedent) of the conditional premise. One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with an example that has true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example:
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 ...