Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Not to be confused with Calling the question. In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which ...
This explains, for example, why arguments that are accidentally valid are still somehow flawed: because the arguer himself lacks a good reason to believe the conclusion. [9] The fallacy of begging the question, on this perspective, is a fallacy because it fails to expand our knowledge by providing independent justification for its conclusion ...
Mind projection fallacy – assuming that a statement about an object describes an inherent property of the object, rather than a personal perception. Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction (e.g.: inferring is from ought).
Examples of this include the speaker or writer: [48] Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi) Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem) Assuming the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called "begging the question" (petitio principii) Making jumps in logic (non sequitur)
Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing. [4] Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement ...
A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of ...
Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy, [1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance, [15][16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). [14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, [12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority ...