Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An appeal to the law (argumentum ad legem in Latin) is an informal fallacy in which someone tries to encourage or defend an action based on its legality, or condemn it as morally reprehensible, purely because it is illegal. [1]
A fallacy of induction happens when a conclusion is drawn from premises that only lightly support it. Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is more important; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy.
Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, [1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine. Arguments from incredulity can take the form:
For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor. [25] When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is an "appeal to the common man". [26]
A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument that renders the argument invalid. The flaw can be expressed in the standard system of logic. [1] Such an argument is always considered to be wrong.
Reductio ad absurdum, painting by John Pettie exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1884. In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or apagogical argument, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.
Hume's law or Hume's guillotine [1] is the thesis that an ethical or judgmental conclusion cannot be inferred from purely descriptive factual statements. [ 2 ] A similar view is defended by G. E. Moore 's open-question argument , intended to refute any identification of moral properties with natural properties , which is asserted by ethical ...
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick") is the fallacy committed when one makes an appeal to force [1] to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.