Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'.
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised. [23] Often paired with moving the goalposts (see below), as when an argument is challenged using a common definition of a term in the argument, and the arguer presents a different definition of the term and thereby demands different evidence to debunk the argument.
An a fortiori argument is an "argument from a stronger reason", meaning that, because one fact is true, a second (related and included) fact must also be true. / ˌ eɪ f ɔːr t i ˈ oʊ r aɪ, ˌ eɪ f ɔːr ʃ i ˈ oʊ r aɪ / a mensa et thoro: from table and bed Divorce a mensa et thoro indicates legal separation without legal divorce. / ˌ ...
A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists. [1] It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid.
Tmesis – separating the parts of a compound word by a different word (or words) to create emphasis or other similar effects. Topos – a line or specific type of argument. Toulmin model – a method of diagramming arguments created by Stephen Toulmin that identifies such components as backing, claim, data, qualifier, rebuttal, and warrant.
Quasi-arguments, on the other hand, are not true arguments in the sense that they do not possess referential qualities, but do behave like arguments in the sense that they can control PRO. Chomsky claims that " weather it " is a quasi-argument, as in the phrase It sometimes rains after [α snowing], where α represents PRO, which is controlled ...
A self-refuting idea or self-defeating idea is an idea or statement whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true. Many ideas are called self-refuting by their detractors, and such accusations are therefore almost always controversial, with defenders stating that the idea is being misunderstood or that the argument is invalid.
Ipse dixit (Latin for "he said it himself") is an assertion without proof, or a dogmatic expression of opinion. [1] [2] The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is "just how it is" distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic and immutable. [3]