Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the ...
The Van Gogh Fallacy is an example of a logical fallacy. It is a type of fallacy wherein the conclusion is affirmed by its consequent (fallacy of affirming the consequent) instead of its antecedent (modus ponens). [1] [2] Its name is derived from a particular case that argues:
Logical Fallacies, Literacy Education Online; Informal Fallacies, Texas State University page on informal fallacies; Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies (mirror) Visualization: Rhetological Fallacies, Information is Beautiful; Master List of Logical Fallacies, University of Texas at El Paso; Fallacies, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The fallacy of the undistributed middle occurs when the term that links the two premises is never distributed. In this example, distribution is marked in boldface: All Z is B; All Y is B; Therefore, all Y is Z; B is the common term between the two premises (the middle term) but is never distributed, so this syllogism is invalid.
This category is for fallacies of propositional logic, ... Affirming a disjunct; Argument from fallacy
affirming the consequent A logical fallacy in which a conditional statement is incorrectly used to infer its converse. For example, from "If P then Q" and "Q", concluding "P". alethic modal logic A type of modal logic that deals with modalities of truth, such as necessity and possibility. ambiguity
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):
In Part III, Ockham deals with the definition and division of consequences, and provides a treatment of Aristotle's Topical rules. [1] According to Ockham a consequence is a conditional proposition, composed of two categorical propositions by the terms 'if' and 'then'. For example, 'if a man runs, then God exists' (Si homo currit, Deus est). [2]