Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Two wrongs make a right – assuming that, if one wrong is committed, another wrong will rectify it. [113] Vacuous truth – a claim that is technically true but meaningless, in the form no A in B has C, when there is no A in B. For example, claiming that no mobile phones in the room are on when there are no mobile phones in the room.
Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, [1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine. Arguments from incredulity can take the form:
For example, when getting to know others, people tend to ask leading questions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions about the person. However, this kind of confirmation bias has also been argued to be an example of social skill ; a way to establish a connection with the other person.
Misattribution in general, when a quotation or work is accidentally, traditionally, or based on bad information attributed to the wrong person or group A specific fallacy where an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased, or fabricated source in support of an argument.
Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena. The opposite, slothful induction , is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence ...
Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Yet, if Speaker B believes the maxim "it is acceptable to break the law to wrong those who also break the law", they are committing no logical fallacy. From the conversation above, it is impossible to know which Speaker B believes. This fallacy is often used as a red herring, or an attempt to change or distract from the issue. For example:
If a large majority of sources are adamantly, confidently wrong, then we, as chroniclers of consensus, may have no option but to reflect that. This is a dicey topic. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth has been downgraded from policy to partial policy to essay, while at the same time words vaguely reflecting it remain in Wikipedia:Verifiability .