Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited, and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept called mathematical fallacy.There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof, in that a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof while in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies there is some element of concealment or ...
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.
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).
Conjunction fallacy. The conjunction fallacy (also known as the Linda problem) is an inference that a conjoint set of two or more specific conclusions is likelier than any single member of that same set, in violation of the laws of probability. It is a type of formal fallacy.
Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion supported by these premises. The premises and the conclusion are propositions, i.e. true or false claims about what is the case.
Affirming the consequent is the action of taking a true statement and invalidly concluding its converse . The name affirming the consequent derives from using the consequent, Q, of , to conclude the antecedent P. This fallacy can be summarized formally as or, alternatively, . [5]
Formal fallacy. 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 ...
v. t. e. 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 ...