Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) is an informal fallacy where a general rule is applied to an exceptional case. The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact that one or more accidental features of the specific case make it an exception to the rule.
The character Doc in the story describes the "devil theory" fallacy, explaining, "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity." [ 3 ] Hanlon's razor became well known after its inclusion in the Jargon File , a glossary of computer programmer slang, in 1990. [ 4 ]
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample.
The above argument using converse accident is an argument for full legal use of marijuana given that glaucoma patients use it. The argument based on the slippery slope argues against medicinal use of marijuana because it will lead to full use. [citation needed] The fallacy of converse accident is a form of hasty generalization.
Converse accident, fallacy when a rule that applies only to an exceptional case is wrongly applied to all cases in general Topics referred to by the same term This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Destroying the exception .
The accident fallacy is committed when a principle is misinterpreted (as in the surgeon example), not when two people disagree on what the exception of a rule *should* be. It stems from the semantic aspect of rules and the difference between what is stated and what is understood.
In a 29-10 win over the Seattle Seahawks, Tracy ran 18 times for 129 yards — averaging 7.2 yards per rush — and was the anchor of New York’s offense.
Slothful induction, also called appeal to coincidence, is a fallacy in which an inductive argument is denied its proper conclusion, despite strong evidence for inference.An example of slothful induction might be that of a careless man who has had twelve accidents in the last six months and it is strongly evident that it was due to his negligence or rashness, yet keeps insisting that it is just ...