Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The exception proves the rule is a phrase that arises from ignorance, though common to good writers. The original word was preuves, which did not mean proves but tests. [4] In this sense, the phrase does not mean that an exception demonstrates a rule to be true or to exist, but that it tests the rule, thereby proving its value.
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy. Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [110] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [111]
Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein a person claims an exception to a general or universal principle, but the exception is unjustified. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5 ...
Destroying the exception may refer to: Accident (fallacy) , fallacy when an exception to a rule of thumb is ignored Converse accident , fallacy when a rule that applies only to an exceptional case is wrongly applied to all cases in general
The fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) is an informal fallacy where a general rule is applied to an exceptional case. The fallacy of accident gets its name from the fact that one or more accidental features of the specific case make it an exception to the rule.
It is a generalization that is accurate, but tags on a qualification that eliminates enough cases (as exceptions); that what remains is much less impressive than what the original statement might have led one to assume. Fallacy of unrepresentative samples is a fallacy where a conclusion is drawn using samples that are unrepresentative or biased ...
Reductio ad absurdum, painting by John Pettie exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1884. In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or apagogical arguments, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.
Al Martinich claims that the philosopher Thomas Hobbes was the first to discuss a propensity among philosophers mistakenly to combine words taken from different and incompatible categories.