Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; [1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. [2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or ...
When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, some authors dub it circulus in probando ' reasoning in a circle ', [14] [22] or more commonly, circular reasoning. Begging the question is not considered a formal fallacy (an argument that is defective because it uses an incorrect deductive step ).
Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms. Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise. [11] Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative ...
When the model becomes accurate, it is just as difficult to understand as the real-world processes it represents. Buttered cat paradox: Humorous example of a paradox from contradicting proverbs. Intentionally blank page: Many documents contain pages on which the text "This page intentionally left blank" is printed, thereby making the page not ...
Logical reasoning is a form of thinking that is concerned with arriving at a conclusion in a rigorous way. [1] This happens in the form of inferences by transforming the information present in a set of premises to reach a conclusion.
In physics, circular motion is movement of an object along the circumference of a circle or rotation along a circular arc. It can be uniform, with a constant rate of rotation and constant tangential speed, or non-uniform with a changing rate of rotation. The rotation around a fixed axis of a three-dimensional body involves the circular motion ...
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 ...
It is a general term that encompasses forms of logical fallacy, such as tu quoque and circular reasoning. Specious reasoning often presents a sanitised or beautified view of an issue that can make it appear less of a problem, such as downplaying the effects of climate change , and can be deceptively persuasive.