Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for 'with this, therefore because of this'; correlation implies causation; faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – a faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other. [57]
An example is a probabilistically valid instance of the formally invalid argument form of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. [ 12 ] Thus, "fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments, [ 13 ] because for most fallacious instances of an argument form, a similar but non-fallacious instance ...
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 ...
This argument has been considered a logical fallacy since its introduction by John Locke and Richard Whately. [9] In particular, this is a form of genetic fallacy; in which the conclusion about the validity of a statement is justified by appealing to the characteristics of the person who is speaking, such as in the ad hominem fallacy. [10]
A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics. [1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions. [2]
The following is an example of a false dilemma with the simple constructive form: (1) "If you tell the truth, you force your friend into a social tragedy; and therefore, are an immoral person". (2) "If you lie, you are an immoral person (since it is immoral to lie)".
A false analogy is an informal fallacy, or a faulty instance, of the argument from analogy. An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to examine analogical reasoning in detail. [2]
The word "nothing" in the example above has two meanings, as presented: "nothing is better" means the thing being named has the highest value possible (there exists nothing better); "better than nothing" means only that the thing being described has some value (more than the implied zero value of nothing).