Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Special pleading also often resembles the "appeal to" logical fallacies. [8] [9] In medieval philosophy, it was not presumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts a presumption of existential import. [citation needed] [further explanation needed]
A formal fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument that renders the argument invalid, ... A special case is a mathematical fallacy, ...
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.
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]
Trivial objections are a special case of red herring. The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways.
The following are special cases of universal generalization and existential elimination; these occur in substructural logics, such as linear logic. Rule of weakening (or monotonicity of entailment) (aka no-cloning theorem), ¯
The main focus of most logicians is to study the criteria according to which an argument is correct or incorrect. A fallacy is committed if these criteria are violated. In the case of formal logic, they are known as rules of inference. [93] They are definitory rules, which determine whether an inference is correct or which inferences are allowed.
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 ...