Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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."
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]
Both the fallacy of division and the fallacy of composition were addressed by Aristotle in Sophistical Refutations.. In the philosophy of the ancient Greek Anaxagoras, as claimed by the Roman atomist Lucretius, [6] it was assumed that the atoms constituting a substance must themselves have the salient observed properties of that substance: so atoms of water would be wet, atoms of iron would be ...
The fallacies Aristotle identifies in Chapter 4 (formal fallacies) and 5 (informal fallacies) of this book are the following: Fallacies in the language or formal fallacies (in dictionem): Equivocation; Amphiboly; Composition; Division; Accent; Figure of speech or form of expression; Fallacies not in the language or informal fallacies (extra ...
Al Martinich claims that the philosopher Thomas Hobbes was the first to discuss a propensity among philosophers mistakenly to combine words taken from different and incompatible categories.
A definition of a function, set, or other mathematical object that is defined in terms of itself, using a base case and a rule for generating subsequent elements. recursive function A function that can be computed by a procedure that calls itself, directly or indirectly, with a base case to prevent infinite recursion.
The continuum fallacy (also known as the fallacy of the beard, [9] [10] line-drawing fallacy, or decision-point fallacy [11]) is an informal fallacy related to the sorites paradox. Both fallacies cause one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be.
In philosophical logic, the masked-man fallacy (also known as the intensional fallacy or epistemic fallacy) [1] is committed when one makes an illicit use of Leibniz's law in an argument. Leibniz's law states that if A and B are the same object, then A and B are indiscernible (that is, they have all the same properties).