Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Unsubstantiated claims, which lack specific evidence, involve some common fallacies, which can mislead other editors into false conclusions. Some common fallacies of baseless claims include: Begging the question - asserting a claim as if true but without proof; Argumentum ad nauseam - repeating remarks, typically with "walls of text" which lack ...
Identify all the claims being made by the author. Rewrite them as independent statements, eliminating non-essential words. Identify which statements are premises, sub-conclusions, and the main conclusion. Provide missing, implied conclusions and implied premises. (This is optional depending on the purpose of the argument map.)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (sometimes shortened to ECREE), [1] also known as the Sagan standard, is an aphorism popularized by science communicator Carl Sagan. He used the phrase in his 1979 book Broca's Brain and the 1980 television program Cosmos .
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.
Ref: Oxford English dictionary: "induction ... 3. Logic the inference of a general law from particular instances." [clarification needed]) The definition given thus applies only when the "conclusion" is general. Two possible definitions of "inference" are: A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
The principle that any proposition is either true or false, with no middle ground; foundational to classical logic. Boethius' theses The formulas (A → B) → ¬ (A → ¬ B) and (A → ¬ B) → ¬ (A → B) in propositional logic; they are theorems in connexive logic but not in classical logic. [31] [32] [33] See also Aristotle's theses ...
In other words, it is logically invalid to prove a claim is true simply because an authority has said it. The explanation is: authorities can be wrong, and the only way of logically proving a claim is providing real evidence or a valid logical deduction of the claim from the evidence.
Inductive reasoning also does not provide absolute certainty about positive claims. [19] [10] A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim. [10] [22]