Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility, also known as possibiliter ergo probabiliter, "possibly, therefore probably") is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it is possibly the case. [1] [2] The fact that an event is possible does not imply that the event is probable, nor that the event was realized.
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.
An appeal to the law (argumentum ad legem in Latin) is an informal fallacy in which someone tries to encourage or defend an action based on its legality, or condemn it as morally reprehensible, purely because it is illegal. [1]
Example 5. A historical example of this is that Europeans in the Middle Ages believed that lice were beneficial to health since there would rarely be any lice on sick people. The reasoning was that the people got sick because the lice left. The real reason however is that lice are extremely sensitive to body temperature.
When the model becomes accurate, it is just as difficult to understand as the real-world processes it represents. Buttered cat paradox: Humorous example of a paradox from contradicting proverbs. Intentionally blank page: Many documents contain pages on which the text "This page intentionally left blank" is printed, thereby making the page not ...
The name of the fallacy comes from the example: Premise 1: I know who Claus is. Premise 2: I do not know who the masked man is. Conclusion: Therefore, Claus is not the masked man. The premises may be true and the conclusion false if Claus is the masked man and the speaker does not know that. Thus the argument is a fallacious one. [clarification ...
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 ...