Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Pyrrhonism. 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 ...
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. [22] 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 ...
Cartesian circle. The Cartesian circle (also known as Arnauld 's circle[ 1 ]) is an example of fallacious circular reasoning attributed to French philosopher René Descartes. He argued that the existence of God is proven by reliable perception, which is itself guaranteed by God.
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).
Fallacies of definition are the various ways in which definitions can fail to explain terms. The phrase is used to suggest an analogy with an informal fallacy. [1] Definitions may fail to have merit, because they are overly broad, [2] [3] [4] overly narrow, [3] [4] or incomprehensible; [4] or they use obscure or ambiguous language, [2] contain mutually exclusive parts, [3] or (perhaps most ...
Examples of this include the speaker or writer: [48] Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi) Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem) Assuming the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called "begging the question" (petitio principii) Making jumps in logic (non sequitur)
Informal fallacies are a form of incorrect argument in natural language. [ 4 ] An argument is a series of propositions, called the premises, together with one more proposition, called the conclusion. [ 5 ][ 1 ] The premises in correct arguments offer either deductive or defeasible support for the conclusion.
The description of the fallacy in this form is attributed to British philosopher Antony Flew, who wrote, in his 1966 book God & Philosophy, . In this ungracious move a brash generalization, such as No Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, when faced with falsifying facts, is transformed while you wait into an impotent tautology: if ostensible Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, then this is ...