Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position. [ 92 ] Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because ...
In modern philosophy, there are two main types of appeal to emotion. [21] One is the appeal to force (known as ad baculum) the other is the appeal to sympathy, known as ad misericordiam. [21] These are only considered fallacies when used for doxastic systems. [21]
For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor. [23] 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". [24]
The philosopher Irving Copi defined argumentum ad populum differently from an appeal to popular opinion itself, [19] as an attempt to rouse the "emotions and enthusiasms of the multitude". [19] [20] Douglas N. Walton argues that appeals to popular opinion can be logically valid in some cases, such as in political dialogue within a democracy. [21]
Ahead of the verdicts, attorneys gave closing arguments during Anthony Patterson's trial on 13 counts of child sexual assault and trafficking.
In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that assert a conclusion's truth value (true or false) without regard to the formal preservation of the truth from the premises; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's consequential desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value.
There is a debate over whether the argument from ignorance is always fallacious. It is generally accepted that there are only special circumstances in which this argument may not be fallacious. For example, with the presumption of innocence in legal cases, it would make sense to argue: [5] It has not been proven that the defendant is guilty.