Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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.
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'.
Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. 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]
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.
In many circumstances, using the imperative mood may sound blunt or even rude, so it is often used with care. Example: "Paul, do your homework now". An imperative is used to tell someone to do something without argument. Many languages, including English, use the bare verb stem to form the imperative (such as "go", "run", "do").
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]
The above argument works because the exact same reasoning could be applied if the alternative assumption, namely, that the first object is blue, were made, or, similarly, that the words 'red' and 'blue' can be freely exchanged in the wording of the proof. As a result, the use of "without loss of generality" is valid in this case.