Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Argument from anecdote – a fallacy where anecdotal evidence is presented as an argument; without any other contributory evidence or reasoning. Inductive fallacy – a more general name for a class of fallacies, including hasty generalization and its relatives. A fallacy of induction happens when a conclusion is drawn from premises that only ...
Boudry coined the term fallacy fork. [27] For a given fallacy, one must either characterize it by means of a deductive argumentation scheme, which rarely applies (the first prong of the fork), or one must relax definitions and add nuance to take the actual intent and context of the argument into account (the other prong of the fork). [27]
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 ...
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. [3] [4]
When referring to a generalization made from a single example, the terms fallacy of the lonely fact, [8] or the fallacy of proof by example, might be used. [9] When evidence is intentionally excluded to bias the result, the fallacy of exclusion—a form of selection bias—is said to be involved. [10]
The fallacy can take many forms, such as cherry picking, hasty generalization, proof by assertion, and so on. [1] The fallacy does not mean that every single instance of sense data or testimony must be considered a fallacy, only that anecdotal evidence, when improperly used in logic, results in a fallacy.
Closely connected with begging the question is the fallacy of circular reasoning (circulus in probando), a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with the conclusion. [26] The individual components of a circular argument can be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and does not lack relevance. However ...
The meaning of the term "evidence" in phenomenology shows many parallels to its epistemological usage, but it is understood in a narrower sense. Thus, evidence here specifically refers to intuitive knowledge, which is described as "self-given" (selbst-gegeben). [26]