Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
This empirical evidence was generally accepted until 1950, when Cromwell published findings of the opposite: a recency effect in which arguments presented later had greater effectiveness in persuasion than arguments presented first. [3] It now appears that both primacy and recency effects occur in persuasion.
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 ...
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.
The effect grew even more pronounced when statements were repeated twice and yet more pronounced when they were repeated four times. The researchers thus concluded that memory retrieval is a powerful method for increasing the so-called validity of statements and that the illusion of truth is an effect that can be observed without directly ...
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]
One of the most significant arguments generative grammarians have for linguistic nativism is the poverty of the stimulus argument. [4] [5] [6] Pullum and Scholz frame the poverty of the stimulus argument by examining all of the ways that the input is insufficient for language acquisition. [7] First, children are exposed only to positive evidence.