Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning. [1] [2]
Examples of fear appeal include reference to social exclusion, and getting laid-off from one's job, [6] getting cancer from smoking or involvement in car accidents and driving. Fear appeals are nonmonotonic , meaning that the level of persuasion does not always increase when the claimed danger is increased.
Reverend William Harrison, in A Description of England (1577), complained that when men lived in houses of willow they were men of oak, but now they lived in houses of oak and had become men of willow and "a great manie altogither of straw, which is a sore alteration [i.e. a sad change]." [21] The phrase men of straw appears to refer to ...
This explains, for example, why arguments that are accidentally valid are still somehow flawed: because the arguer himself lacks a good reason to believe the conclusion. [9] The fallacy of begging the question, on this perspective, is a fallacy because it fails to expand our knowledge by providing independent justification for its conclusion ...
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant. [18]: 3 A language-independent fallacy is, for example: "Coriscus is different from Socrates." "Socrates is a man." "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man." [18]: 4
Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing. [4] Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick") is the fallacy committed when one makes an appeal to force [1] to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.
It could also be understood as "beggaring the question", i.e. making a beggar of the question. It is now often used to mean simply "raising the question" or "leading to the question". The latter usage does not match the usual pattern (e.g. "begging for money", "begging for mercy"), which would suggest "begging for the question". [44] [45] [46 ...