Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; [1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. [2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or ...
In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning. [1] [2] Some examples are: "People have known for thousands of years that the earth is round. Therefore, the earth is round." "Drugs are illegal so they must be bad for you.
In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited, and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept called mathematical fallacy.There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof, in that a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof while in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies there is some element of concealment or ...
The Cartesian circle (also known as Arnauld's circle [1]) is an example of fallacious circular reasoning attributed to French philosopher René Descartes. He argued that the existence of God is proven by reliable perception , which is itself guaranteed by God.
Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end up with (e.g.: all bachelors are unmarried males). Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presuppositions, loaded question, plurium interrogationum ) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been ...
The classic proof that the square root of 2 is irrational is a refutation by contradiction. [11] Indeed, we set out to prove the negation ¬ ∃ a, b ∈ . a/b = √ 2 by assuming that there exist natural numbers a and b whose ratio is the square root of two, and derive a contradiction.
These paradoxes may be due to fallacious reasoning , or an unintuitive solution . The term paradox is often used to describe a counter-intuitive result. However, some of these paradoxes qualify to fit into the mainstream viewpoint of a paradox, which is a self-contradictory result gained even while properly applying accepted ways of reasoning .
In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the ...