Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An evolutionary debunking, sometimes referred to as an evolutionary debunking argument or evolutionary debunking thesis, is a philosophical argument which holds that, because humans (like all organisms) have an evolutionary origin, the principles of ethics and morality that we have devised are invalid and cannot be considered objective knowledge.
Judgmental language – using insulting or pejorative language in an argument. Pooh-pooh – stating that an opponent's argument is unworthy of consideration. [84] Style over substance – embellishing an argument with compelling language, exploiting a bias towards the esthetic qualities of an argument, e.g. the rhyme-as-reason effect [85]
The description of the fallacy in this form is attributed to British philosopher Antony Flew, who wrote, in his 1966 book God & Philosophy, . In this ungracious move a brash generalization, such as No Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, when faced with falsifying facts, is transformed while you wait into an impotent tautology: if ostensible Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, then this is ...
Defeasibility is found in literatures that are concerned with argument and the process of argument, or heuristic reasoning. Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning , where the reasoning does not produce a full, complete, or final demonstration of a claim, i.e., where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion ...
The composite is then converted into an AP score of 1-5 using a scale for that year's exam. [5] Students generally receive their scores by mail in mid-July of the year they took the test. Scores can be viewed on the College Board website using My AP. Alternatively, they can receive their scores by phone as early as July 1 for a fee. [6]
There is a debate over whether the argument from ignorance is always fallacious. It is generally accepted that there are only special circumstances in which this argument may not be fallacious. For example, with the presumption of innocence in legal cases, it would make sense to argue: [5] It has not been proven that the defendant is guilty.
Some of Israel’s critics seized on the debunked ZAKA accounts and other untrue ones as proof that the Israeli government distorted the facts to justify the war — one in which more than 35,000 ...
The premises of an argument may be seen as the foundation on which the conclusion is built. According to this analogy, two things can go wrong and turn an argument into a fallacy. It could be that the foundation is shaky. But even a solid foundation is not helpful if it does not provide support for the conclusion in question. [5]