Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – arguing that, because something is so phenomenal or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency. [20] Double counting – counting events or occurrences more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases exceeding ...
Belief bias, an effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion. [ 88 ] Illusory truth effect , the tendency to believe that a statement is true if it is easier to process , or if it has been stated multiple times , regardless of its actual veracity.
The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways. [1] [2]: 165 These objections can appear in the form of lists, hypotheticals, and even accusations.
But "since deductive arguments depend on formal properties and inductive arguments don't, formal fallacies apply only to deductive arguments". [5] A logical form such as "A and B" is independent of any particular conjunction of meaningful propositions. Logical form alone can guarantee that, given true premises, a true conclusion must follow.
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 .
An argument from authority [a] is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument. [ 1 ] The argument from authority is a logical fallacy , [ 2 ] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.
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 ...
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. [1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."