Ad
related to: synonym for not arguable to know people are getting
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
(This does not mean the conclusion has to be true; it is only true if the premises are true, which they may not be!) Some men are hawkers. Some hawkers are rich. Therefore, some men are rich. Invalid argument. This can be more easily seen by giving a counter-example with the same argument form: Some people are herbivores. Some herbivores are ...
Tort reform excludes any other type of reform and furthermore characterizes the article that it is about, saying it is a "reform" when that is arguable. Objectivist philosophy is about Ayn Rand 's philosophy, not metaphysical objectivism , though someone who considers themselves an objectivist may only be referring to metaphysical objectivism ...
John Locke (1632–1704), the likely originator of the term.. Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance, [a] is an informal fallacy where something is claimed to be true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.
The concept is also applied to situations in which people intentionally turn their attention away from an ethical problem that is believed to be important by those using the phrase (for instance, because the problem is too disturbing for people to want it dominating their thoughts, or from the knowledge that solving the problem would require ...
Adolf Hitler, German Führer and responsible for the Holocaust to exterminate nearly all of European Jews and other victims (i.e. Roma people, Slavs, homosexuals and communists), remains an infamous emotionally charged figure when it comes to associated issues of racism and antisemitism
A crane retrieves part of the wreckage from the Potomac River, in the aftermath of the collision of American Eagle flight 5342 and a Black Hawk helicopter that crashed into the river (REUTERS)
Not even wrong" is a phrase used to describe pseudoscience or bad science. It describes an argument or explanation that purports to be scientific but uses faulty reasoning or speculative premises, which can be neither affirmed nor denied and thus cannot be discussed rigorously and scientifically .
Most of the content seems directed at those wanting to know "how to" either create or understand medical terminology. Yet "Wikipedia is not a how-to manual", according to policy. This article is supposed to be a glossary. It needs a complete re-write. Most of the introduction repeats the section called "Discussion" and needs dropping.