Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions. [3] [4] Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular ...
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. The fallacy is committed when one asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has ...
Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to: Proving a negative, in the philosophic burden of proof; Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl; Modus tollens, a logical proof; Proof of impossibility, mathematics; Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove
The dictum appears in Hitchens's 2007 book God Is Not Great: How religion poisons everything. [3]: 150, 258 The term "Hitchens's razor" itself first appeared (as "Hitchens' razor") in an online forum in October 2007, and was used by atheist blogger Rixaeton in December 2010, and popularised by, among others, evolutionary biologist and atheist activist Jerry Coyne after Hitchens died in ...
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. [1]
In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent's argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any fallacies , and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided ...
Russell's teapot – Analogy formulated by Bertrand Russell to illustrate that the burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims; Occam's razor § Anti-razors; Zebra (medicine) – Exotic diagnosis in medicine which is usually unnecessary and wrong
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 ...