Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received as a blatant allegory must necessarily not be regarded as such if the author intended it not to be so).
The continuum fallacy (also known as the fallacy of the beard, [44] [45] line-drawing fallacy, or decision-point fallacy [46]) is an informal fallacy related to the sorites paradox. Both fallacies cause one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be.
Message design logic is a communication theory that makes the claim that individuals possess implicit theories of communication within themselves, called message design logics. [1] Referred to as a “theory of theories,” Message Design Logic offers three different fundamental premises in reasoning about communication . [ 2 ]
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
Many models of communication include the idea that a sender encodes a message and uses a channel to transmit it to a receiver. Noise may distort the message along the way. The receiver then decodes the message and gives some form of feedback. [1] Models of communication simplify or represent the process of communication.
A fallacy in argumentation that targets the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. ad ignorantium A logical fallacy where a proposition is considered true because it has not been proven false or vice versa. ad infinitum An argument or process that is supposed to continue indefinitely, without ever reaching an end or conclusion.
This explains, for example, why arguments that are accidentally valid are still somehow flawed: because the arguer himself lacks a good reason to believe the conclusion. [9] The fallacy of begging the question, on this perspective, is a fallacy because it fails to expand our knowledge by providing independent justification for its conclusion ...
Context may be omitted intentionally or accidentally, thinking it to be non-essential. As a fallacy, quoting out of context differs from false attribution, in that the out of context quote is still attributed to the correct source. Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms: