Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Persuasive definition – purporting to use the "true" or "commonly accepted" meaning of a term while, in reality, using an uncommon or altered definition. (cf. the if-by-whiskey fallacy) Ecological fallacy – inferring about the nature of an entity based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which that entity belongs.
The difficulty in classifying slippery slope arguments is that there is no clear consensus in the literature as to how terminology should be used. It has been said that whilst these two fallacies "have a relationship which may justify treating them together", they are also distinct, and "the fact that they share a name is unfortunate". [8]
Even non-deductive arguments can be said to be fallacious: for example, an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality. But "since deductive arguments depend on formal properties and inductive arguments don't, formal fallacies apply only to deductive arguments". [5]
Download as PDF; Printable version; ... This category is for arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural ("formal") flaws, such as a due to ...
For example: No fish are dogs, and no dogs can fly, therefore all fish can fly. The only thing that can be properly inferred from these premises is that some things that are not fish cannot fly, provided that dogs exist. Or: We don't read that trash. People who read that trash don't appreciate real literature. Therefore, we appreciate real ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments is a book on critical thinking written by Ali Almossawi and illustrated by Alejandro Giraldo. The book describes 19 logical fallacies using a set of illustrations, in which various cartoon characters participate. The online version of the book was published under a Creative Commons license on July 15, 2013. [1]
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). [1]