Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word or expression in multiple senses within an argument. [1] [2] It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence. [1]
The following statements are examples of false equivalence: [3] "The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no more harmful than when your neighbor drips some oil on the ground when changing his car's oil." The "false equivalence" is the comparison between things differing by many orders of magnitude: [ 3 ] Deepwater Horizon spilled 210 million US gal ...
Equivocation – using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended. [21] Ambiguous middle term – using a middle term with multiple meanings. [22] Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised. [23]
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. [1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy, [2] the fallacist's fallacy, [3] and the bad reasons fallacy.
A correlative conjunction is a relationship between two statements where one must be false and the other true. In formal logic this is known as the exclusive or relationship; traditionally, terms between which this relationship exists have been called contradictories.
An example is a probabilistically valid instance of the formally invalid argument form of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. [ 12 ] Thus, "fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments, [ 13 ] because for most fallacious instances of an argument form, a similar but non-fallacious instance ...
Venn diagram for "A or B", with inclusive or (OR) Venn diagram for "A or B", with exclusive or (XOR). The fallacy lies in concluding that one disjunct must be false because the other disjunct is true; in fact they may both be true because "or" is defined inclusively rather than exclusively.
A logical fallacy in which a conditional statement is incorrectly used to infer its converse. For example, from "If P then Q" and "Q", concluding "P". alethic modal logic A type of modal logic that deals with modalities of truth, such as necessity and possibility. ambiguity