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 ...
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.
Gerd Gigerenzer has criticized the framing of cognitive biases as errors in judgment, and favors interpreting them as arising from rational deviations from logical thought. [6] Explanations include information-processing rules (i.e., mental shortcuts), called heuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments.
The historical fallacy is a logical fallacy originally described by philosopher John Dewey in The Psychological Review in 1896. Most simply put, the fallacy occurs when a person believes that results occur only because of the process taken to obtain them.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
The appeal to novelty (also called appeal to modernity or argumentum ad novitatem) is a logical fallacy in which one prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern. [1] In a controversy between status quo and new inventions, an appeal to novelty argument is not in itself a valid ...
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_logical_fallacies&oldid=147534755"
Additionally, the appeal to the stone technique is often paired with other logical fallacies that restrict the ability to further dialogue. [11] Participants presenting an appeal to the stone argument may use ad-hominem attacks [12] to avoid the discussion’s topic, or may pair it with a straw-man argument to discredit the other participant. [13]