Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy. Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [110] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [111]
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
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 ...
In everyday reasoning, the fallacy of four terms occurs most frequently by equivocation: using the same word or phrase but with a different meaning each time, creating a fourth term even though only three distinct words are used. The resulting argument sounds like the (valid) first example above, but is in fact structured like the invalid ...
The animistic fallacy involves attributing personal intention to an event or situation. Reification fallacy should not be confused with other fallacies of ambiguity: Accentus, where the ambiguity arises from the emphasis (accent) placed on a word or phrase; Amphiboly, a verbal fallacy arising from ambiguity in the grammatical structure of a ...
The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber."
In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word or expression in multiple senses within an argument. [1] [2] It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence. [1]
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position. For example: Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context). [3]