Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Nirvana fallacy (perfect-solution fallacy) – solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect. Package deal – treating essentially dissimilar concepts as though they were essentially similar. Prevalent proof fallacy – Using consensus or majority vote as evidence of truthfulness, often without regard for expert opinion.
A closely related concept is the "perfect solution fallacy". By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely unrealistic—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real ...
Truth-default theory (TDT) is a communication theory which predicts and explains the use of veracity and deception detection in humans. It was developed upon the discovery of the veracity effect - whereby the proportion of truths versus lies presented in a judgement study on deception will drive accuracy rates.
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant. [18]: 3 A language-independent fallacy is, for example: "Coriscus is different from Socrates." "Socrates is a man." "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man." [18]: 4
An appeal to novelty is not always a fallacy. It only becomes one if the supposed connections between the newness of something and its quality are disputed, have not been proven, or are presented as undeniable proof. In other words, it's only a fallacy when the claim of superiority based on newness lacks valid support. Thus, what may seem like ...
Pathetic fallacy (also known as anthropomorphic fallacy or anthropomorphization) is a specific type [dubious – discuss] of reification. Just as reification is the attribution of concrete characteristics to an abstract idea, a pathetic fallacy is committed when those characteristics are specifically human characteristics, especially thoughts or feelings. [13]
Jumping to conclusions (officially the jumping conclusion bias, often abbreviated as JTC, and also referred to as the inference-observation confusion [1]) is a psychological term referring to a communication obstacle where one "judge[s] or decide[s] something without having all the facts; to reach unwarranted conclusions".
Closely connected with begging the question is the fallacy of circular reasoning (circulus in probando), a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with the conclusion. [26] The individual components of a circular argument can be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and does not lack relevance. However ...