Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term ...
Well poisoning is the act of malicious manipulation of potable water resources in order to cause illness or death, ... In 1462, for example, ...
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).
Tu quoque (/ tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː /; [ 1 ] Latin for 'you also') is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent appears hypocritical. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack.
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument [ 1 ][ 2 ] that may appear to be well-reasoned if unnoticed. The term was introduced in the Western intellectual tradition by the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis.
The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is fallacious, because vehicles are made ...
The fallacy of four terms (Latin: quaternio terminorum) is the formal fallacy that occurs when a syllogism has four (or more) terms rather than the requisite three, rendering it invalid. Definition [ edit ]
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy which one commits when one reasons, "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is a fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been caused by a closely preceding event merely on the grounds of temporal succession.