Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A logical fallacy involving the use of a word with more than one meaning throughout an argument, leading to a misleading or unsound conclusion. erotetic logic The logic of questions, including the study of the forms and principles of questions and their relationships to answers. Eubulides paradox
Referential fallacy [45] – assuming that all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object (e.g.: Pegasus) or that the meaning comes from how they are used (e.g.: "nobody" was in the room).
For the first portion of the list, see List of words having different meanings in American and British English (A–L). Asterisked (*) meanings, though found chiefly in the specified region, also have some currency in the other dialect; other definitions may be recognised by the other as Briticisms or Americanisms respectively.
It does not leave the user with one statement alone at the end of the argument, instead, it gives an option of two different statements. The first premise gives an option of two different statements. Then it states that if the first one happens, there will be a particular outcome and if the second happens, there will be a separate outcome.
Aristotle held that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion. [2] Premises are sometimes left unstated, in which case, they are called missing premises, for example: Socrates is mortal because all men are mortal. It is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed reasoning ...
Reading this sentence, the only thing one can learn is a new word (soporific) that refers to a more common action (inducing sleep); it does not explain why opium causes that effect. A sentence that explains why opium induces sleep (or the same, why opium has soporific quality) could be the following one:
The presence of the formal fallacy does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true or may even be more probable as a result of the argument, but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described.
There needs to be a relationship established between the premises i.e., a middle term between the premises. If you just have two unrelated premises there is no argument. Notice some of the terms repeat: men is a variation man in premises one and two, Socrates and the term mortal repeats in the conclusion.