Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the "justification" of a belief and its "widespread acceptance" by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal relates to the beliefs of ...
An appeal to purity is commonly associated with protecting a preferred group. Scottish national pride may be at stake if someone regularly considered to be Scottish commits a heinous crime. To protect people of Scottish heritage from a possible accusation of guilt by association , one may use this fallacy to deny that the group is associated ...
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.
The association fallacy is a formal logical fallacy that asserts that properties of one thing must also be properties of another thing if both things belong to the same group. For example, a fallacious arguer may claim that "bears are animals, and bears are dangerous; therefore your dog, which is also an animal, must be dangerous."
Special pleading also often resembles the "appeal to" logical fallacies. [8] [9] In medieval philosophy, it was not presumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts a presumption of existential import. [citation needed] [further explanation needed]
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant. [18]: 3 A language-independent fallacy is, for example: "Coriscus is different from Socrates." "Socrates is a man." "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man." [18]: 4
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.
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: