Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. [1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy, [2] the fallacist's fallacy, [3] and the bad reasons fallacy.
Whately divided fallacies into two groups: logical and material. According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Material fallacies are not logical errors because the conclusion follows from the premises. He then divided the logical group into two groups: purely logical and semi-logical.
The Omaha World-Herald's review said that "this little book takes a potentially ponderous subject (logical fallacies) and makes it wonderfully entertaining." [ 9 ] Jenny Bristol reviewed it for the community blog GeekDad , calling it "a great format for teaching kids about logic".
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 ...
Aristotle's advice in S.E. 27 for resolving fallacies of Begging the Question is brief. If one realizes that one is being asked to concede the original point, one should refuse to do so, even if the point being asked is a reputable belief.
Logical truths are thought to be the simplest case of statements which are analytically true (or in other words, true by definition). All of philosophical logic can be thought of as providing accounts of the nature of logical truth, as well as logical consequence. [1] Logical truths are generally considered to be necessarily true. This is to ...
The following example demonstrates why this line of reasoning is a logical fallacy: I've seen a person shoot someone dead. Therefore, all people are murderers. In the common discourse, a proof by example can also be used to describe an attempt to establish a claim using statistically insignificant examples. In which case, the merit of each ...
In other words, it is logically invalid to prove a claim is true simply because an authority has said it. The explanation is: authorities can be wrong, and the only way of logically proving a claim is providing real evidence or a valid logical deduction of the claim from the evidence. [20] [21] [22]