Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Part of understanding fallacies involves going beyond logic to empirical psychology in order to explain why there is a tendency to commit or fall for the fallacy in question. [ 9 ] [ 1 ] In the case of the false dilemma , the tendency to simplify reality by ordering it through either-or-statements may play an important role.
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]
The conclusion is that either the first outcome or the second outcome will happen. The criticism with this form is that it does not give a definitive conclusion; just a statement of possibilities. [3] When it is written in argument form it looks like below. Either A or B If A then C If B then D Therefore either C or D
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant. [18]: 3 A language-independent fallacy is, for example: "Coriscus is different from Socrates." "Socrates is a man." "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man." [18]: 4
A fallacy is an incorrect argument or a faulty form of reasoning. This means that the premises provide no or not sufficient support for the conclusion. Fallacies often appear to be correct on the first impression and thereby seduce people into accepting and using them. In logic, the term "fallacy" does not mean that the conclusion is false.
G. I. Joe fallacy, the tendency to think that knowing about cognitive bias is enough to overcome it. [65] 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 ...
Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena. The opposite, slothful induction , is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence ...
Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. [1]