Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side. Burdens may be of different kinds for each party, in different phases of litigation.
This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence. Appeal to the stone is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is an informal fallacy, which means that it relies on inductive reasoning in an argument to justify an assertion.
The economistic fallacy is a concept originated by Karl Polanyi in the 1950s, that refers to fallacious conflation of human economy in general, with its market form. [1] Whereas the former is a necessary component of any society, being the organization through which that society meets its physical wants, i.e. reproduces itself, the latter is a ...
Economic ethics is the combination of economics and ethics, incorporating both disciplines to predict, analyze, and model economic phenomena.. It can be summarised as the theoretical ethical prerequisites and foundations of economic systems.
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]
Coase uses three main examples in his article to attempt to illustrate his points. The first is a fictional cattle herder and a farmer, but the second is the case Sturges v Bridgman [12] and the third is the Railway (Fires) Act 1905. [13] Apart from these main examples, the following cases are referred to.
G. I. Joe fallacy, the tendency to think that knowing about cognitive bias is enough to overcome it. [66] Gambler's fallacy, the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. The fallacy arises from an erroneous conceptualization of the law of large numbers. For example, "I've ...
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. [1]