Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An argument from authority [a] is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument. [ 1 ] The argument from authority is a logical fallacy , [ 2 ] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.
Such misattributions may originate as a sort of fallacious argument, if use of the quotation is meant to be persuasive, and attachment to a more famous person (whether intentionally or through misremembering) would lend it more authority. In Jewish biblical studies, an entire group of falsely-attributed books is known as the pseudepigrapha.
False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to promote a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority. False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there ...
Donald Trump likes to test the limits of the system. It has long been the norm that the president appoints men and women with experience, competence, probity and character to his cabinet and staff.
Bork was a member of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia at the time and known as a proponent of constitutional originalism. Bork lost confirmation by a Senate vote of 42 to 58, largely due to Bork's conservative opinions on constitutional issues and his role in the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre .
He’s unqualified, conspiratorial, and more interested in purging leftists from the agency he’s been tapped to lead than with how to use U.S. military power to advance national interests.
The appeal challenged the authority of the federal legislative and executive branches to overturn international treaties and implicitly claimed that any such overturning was subject to judicial oversight. The appeal argued that the right of visitation in a treaty was a form of property protected by the Fifth Amendment.
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.