Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument advanced by Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), seventeenth-century French mathematician, philosopher, physicist, and theologian. [ 1 ] This argument posits that individuals essentially engage in a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God. Pascal contends that a rational person should ...
Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation. [ 1 ] The proposition can sometimes be repeated until any challenges or opposition cease, letting the proponent assert it as fact, and solely due to ...
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 ...
Deductive reasoning usually happens by applying rules of inference. A rule of inference is a way or schema of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises.[17] This happens usually based only on the logical formof the premises. A rule of inference is valid if, when applied to true premises, the conclusion cannot be false.
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).
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 of proof ...
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.
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 ...