Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy. Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [110] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [111]
A difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of: Creation of an ad-hoc exception to prevent the rule from backfiring against the claim: Example: Everyone has a duty to help the police do their job, no matter who the suspect is. That is why we must support ...
The fallacy is committed because of this diversion; it is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim. These objections are often used to not address the merit of an argument but rather to oppose them from a technicality. Example: Amy is using a barrage of objections:
A limiting case is a type of special case which is arrived at by taking some aspect of the concept to the extreme of what is permitted in the general case. If B is true, one can immediately deduce that A is true as well, and if B is false, A can also be immediately deduced to be false.
In logic and mathematics, proof by example (sometimes known as inappropriate generalization) is a logical fallacy whereby the validity of a statement is illustrated through one or more examples or cases—rather than a full-fledged proof. [1] [2] The structure, argument form and formal form of a proof by example generally proceeds as follows ...
This fallacy can be also confused with petitio principii (begging the question), [10] which offers a premise no more plausible than, and often just a restatement of, the conclusion. [11] Closely connected with [petitio principii] is the fallacy of the Complex Question. By a complex question, in the broadest meaning of that term, is meant one ...
In philosophy, proving too much is a logical fallacy which occurs when an argument reaches the desired conclusion in such a way as to make that conclusion only a special case or corollary consequence of a larger, obviously absurd conclusion. It is a fallacy because, if the reasoning were valid, it would hold for the absurd conclusion.
Some of the following terms are equivalent to the term false dilemma, some refer to special forms of false dilemmas and others refer to closely related concepts. Bifurcation fallacy; Black-or-white fallacy; Denying a conjunct (similar to a false dichotomy: see Formal fallacy § Denying a conjunct) Double bind; Either/or fallacy