Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. [1] This has also been known as the fallacy of lost contrast [2] and the fallacy of the suppressed relative. [3]
A correlative conjunction is a relationship between two statements where one must be false and the other true. In formal logic this is known as the exclusive or relationship; traditionally, terms between which this relationship exists have been called contradictories .
Fallacies are types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound. [7] According to The New Handbook of Cognitive Therapy Techniques, they include "unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts". [8]
Correlative ("corelative," UK spelling) is the term adopted by Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld to describe the philosophical relationships between fundamental legal concepts in jurisprudence. Hohfeldian analysis
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Help; Learn to edit; Community portal; Recent changes; Upload file
The word "cause" (or "causation") has multiple meanings in English.In philosophical terminology, "cause" can refer to necessary, sufficient, or contributing causes. In examining correlation, "cause" is most often used to mean "one contributing cause" (but not necessarily the only contributing cause).
Rage-farming (or rage-seeding) derives from the concept of "farming" rage; planting metaphorical seeds which cause angry responses to grow. [12] It is a form of clickbait, a term used since c. 1999, which is "more nuanced" and not necessarily seen as a negative tactic.
The form of the post hoc fallacy is expressed as follows: . A occurred, then B occurred.; Therefore, A caused B. When B is undesirable, this pattern is often combined with the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent, assuming the logical inverse holds: believing that avoiding A will prevent B.