Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Questionable cause. The questionable cause —also known as causal fallacy, false cause, or non causa pro causa ("non-cause for cause" in Latin)—is a category of informal fallacies in which the cause or causes is/are incorrectly identified. In other words, it is a fallacy of reaching a conclusion that one thing caused another, simply because ...
A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a logical fallacy in which one event seems to be the cause of a later ...
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. [107] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [108]
The phrase " correlation does not imply causation " refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them. [ 1 ][ 2 ] The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical ...
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, [1] causal reductionism, root cause fallacy, and reduction fallacy, [2] is an informal fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument that renders the argument invalid. The flaw can be expressed in the standard system of logic. [ 1 ] Such an argument is always considered to be wrong.
In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy[a] is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. [2] It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false ...
In propositional logic, affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement (e.g., "if the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark") under certain assumptions (there are no other lights in the room, it is ...