Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Proof by assertion can also occur when the evidence cited is actually no different than the assertion itself. An argument that actually contains premises that are all the same as the assertion is thus proof by assertion. This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster.
An especially annoying variant is the Gish gallop, in which someone tries to "win" an argument by posting point after point so that no one can keep up. This is especially disruptive on Wikipedia; repeated edit conflicts make it difficult to post responses people actually bothered to write, and even one massive post making 20 points when 5 would ...
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions. [3] [4] Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular ...
The dictum appears in Hitchens's 2007 book God Is Not Great: How religion poisons everything. [3]: 150, 258 The term "Hitchens's razor" itself first appeared (as "Hitchens' razor") in an online forum in October 2007, and was used by atheist blogger Rixaeton in December 2010, and popularised by, among others, evolutionary biologist and atheist activist Jerry Coyne after Hitchens died in ...
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa. [ 68 ] Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
Smith intends to use this evidence to back up his argument that the new indictment does not intrude on any of Trump’s “official” actions as president, for which the Supreme Court ruled he ...
A standard view is that whether an argument is valid is a matter of the argument's logical form. Many techniques are employed by logicians to represent an argument's logical form. A simple example, applied to two of the above illustrations, is the following: Let the letters 'P', 'Q', and 'S' stand, respectively, for the set of men, the set of ...
An inductive argument affirms, not that a certain matter of fact is so, but that relative to certain evidence there is a probability in its favour. The validity of the induction, relative to the original evidence, is not upset, therefore, if, as a fact, the truth turns out to be otherwise. [20] This approach was endorsed by Bertrand Russell. [21]