Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A fallacy of induction happens when a conclusion is drawn from premises that only lightly support it. Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is more important; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy.
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 ...
Special pleading also often resembles the "appeal to" logical fallacies. [8] [9] In medieval philosophy, it was not presumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts a presumption of existential import. [citation needed] [further explanation needed]
For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor. [25] When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is an "appeal to the common man". [26]
The description of the fallacy in this form is attributed to British philosopher Antony Flew, who wrote, in his 1966 book God & Philosophy, . In this ungracious move a brash generalization, such as No Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, when faced with falsifying facts, is transformed while you wait into an impotent tautology: if ostensible Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, then this is ...
Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, [1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine. Arguments from incredulity can take the form:
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.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; [1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. [2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or ...