Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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).
List of fallacies with clear examples, infidels.org; Interactive Syllogistic Machine A web based syllogistic machine for exploring fallacies, figures, and modes of syllogisms. Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate, csun.edu; Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies, onegoodmove.org; Explain fallacies, what they are and how to avoid them ...
Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation. [1]
Proof by assertion is the practice of repeating an argument or proposition until challenges to it "dry up", thus creating a logical fallacy, and often a filibuster or stonewall effect. This is also called " perseveration " – persevering in repeating the same premise.
A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false. A formal fallacy, however, may have a true premise, but a false conclusion. The term 'logical fallacy' is sometimes used in everyday conversation, and refers to a formal fallacy.
In logic and mathematics, proof by example (sometimes known as inappropriate generalization) is a logical fallacy whereby the validity of a statement is illustrated through one or more examples or cases—rather than a full-fledged proof. [1] [2] The structure, argument form and formal form of a proof by example generally proceeds as follows ...
Pages for logged out editors learn more. Contributions; Talk; List of logical fallacies
Additionally, the appeal to the stone technique is often paired with other logical fallacies that restrict the ability to further dialogue. [11] Participants presenting an appeal to the stone argument may use ad-hominem attacks [12] to avoid the discussion’s topic, or may pair it with a straw-man argument to discredit the other participant. [13]