Factor base: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
en>CRGreathouse
cleanup lede
 
en>Niceguyedc
m WPCleaner v1.27 - Repaired 1 link to disambiguation page - (You can help) - Modulo
Line 1: Line 1:
Hi there, I am Andrew Berryhill. To climb is some thing I truly appreciate performing. Mississippi is exactly where his house is. Invoicing is my profession.<br><br>Here is my webpage :: love psychic readings ([http://www.prayerarmor.com/uncategorized/dont-know-which-kind-of-hobby-to-take-up-read-the-following-tips/ this content])
{{For|specific popular misconceptions|List of common misconceptions}}
A [[fallacy]] is incorrect argument in [[logic]] and [[rhetoric]] resulting in a lack of [[validity]], or more generally, a lack of [[soundness]]. Fallacies are either [[Formal fallacy|formal fallacies]] or [[Informal fallacy|informal fallacies]].
 
==Formal fallacies==
{{main|Formal fallacy}}
A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the [[argument form|argument's form]].{{sfn|Bunnin|Yu|2004|loc=[http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405106795_chunk_g97814051067957_ss1-95 "formal fallacy"]}} All formal fallacies are specific types of [[non sequitur (logic)|non sequiturs]].
 
* [[Appeal to probability]] – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).<ref>http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/appeal-to-probability/</ref><ref>http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-an-argument/deductive-logic-arguments/appeal-to-probability-1</ref>
* [[Argument from fallacy]] – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion ''itself'' is false.{{sfn|Curtis|loc=[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html "Fallacy Fallacy"]}}
* [[Base rate fallacy]] – making a probability judgement based on [[conditional probability|conditional probabilities]], without taking into account the effect of [[prior probability|prior probabilities]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Base%20Rate%20Fallacy |title=Base Rate Fallacy |accessdate=2011-02-01 |work=Psychology Glossary |publisher=AlleyDog.com}}</ref>
* [[Conjunction fallacy]] – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/conjunction_fallacy.htm |title=Conjunction Fallacy |accessdate=2011-02-01 |work=ChangingMinds.org |last=Straker |first=David}}</ref>
* [[Masked man fallacy]] (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.{{sfn|Curtis|loc=[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/illisubs.html "The Masked Man Fallacy"]}}
 
===Propositional fallacies===
A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives which occur in it (most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
<br>Types of [[Propositional calculus|Propositional]] fallacies:
* [[Affirming a disjunct]] – concluded that one disjunct of a [[logical disjunction]] must be false because the other disjunct is true; ''A or B; A; therefore not B''.{{sfn|Wilson|1999|p=316}}
* [[Affirming the consequent]] – the [[antecedent (logic)|antecedent]] in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the [[consequent]] is true; ''if A, then B; B, therefore A''.{{sfn|Wilson|1999|p=316}}
* [[Denying the antecedent]] – the [[consequent]] in an [[indicative conditional]] is claimed to be false because the [[antecedent (logic)|antecedent]] is false; ''if A, then B; not A, therefore not B''.{{sfn|Wilson|1999|p=316}}
 
===Quantification fallacies===
A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
<br> Types of [[Quantification]] fallacies:
* [[Existential fallacy]] – an argument has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.{{sfn|Wilson|1999|p=317}}
 
===Formal syllogistic fallacies===
[[Syllogistic fallacy|Syllogistic fallacies]] – logical fallacies that occur in [[syllogisms]].
* [[Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise]] (illicit negative) – when a categorical [[syllogism]] has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.{{sfn|Wilson|1999|p=317}}
* [[Fallacy of exclusive premises]] – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.{{sfn|Wilson|1999|p=317}}
* [[Fallacy of four terms]] (''quaternio terminorum'') – a categorical syllogism that has four terms.{{sfn|Pirie|2006|pp=133–136}}
* [[Illicit major]] – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not [[distribution of terms|distributed]] in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.{{sfn|Wilson|1999|p=317}}
* [[Illicit minor]] – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.{{sfn|Wilson|1999|p=317}}
* [[Negative conclusion from affirmative premises]] (illicit affirmative) – when a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises. {{sfn|Wilson|1999|p=317}}
* [[Fallacy of the undistributed middle]] – the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.{{sfn|Wilson|1999|p=316–317}}
 
==Informal fallacies==
{{main|Informal fallacy}}
Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.{{sfn|Bunnin|Yu|2004|loc=[http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405106795_chunk_g978140510679510_ss1-120 "informal fallacy"]}}
* [[Argument from ignorance]] (appeal to ignorance, ''argumentum ad ignorantiam'') – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.{{sfn|Damer|2009|p=165}}
* Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.<ref>{{cite web|last=Carroll|first=Robert T.|title=The Skeptic's Dictionary|url=http://skepdic.com/dvinefal.html|work=divine fallacy (argument from incredulity)|accessdate=5 April 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Toolkit for Thinking|url=http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-an-argument/denial-arguments/argument-from-personal-incredulity}}</ref>
* [[Argument from repetition]] (''argumentum ad nauseam'') – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
* [[Argument from silence]] (''argumentum e silentio'') – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
* [[Argument to moderation]] (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, ''argumentum ad temperantiam'') – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.{{sfn|Damer|2009|p=150}}
* Argumentum [[ad hominem]] – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.
* Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
* [[Begging the question]] (''petitio principii'') – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.
* [[Philosophic burden of proof|(shifting the) Burden of proof]]  (see – ''onus probandi'') – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
* [[Circular reasoning]] (''circulus in demonstrando'') – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called ''assuming the conclusion''.
* [[Circular cause and consequence]] – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
* [[Continuum fallacy]] (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.{{sfn|Dowden|2010|loc=[http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Line-Drawing "Line-Drawing"]}}
* [[Correlative-based fallacies]]
** [[Correlation does not imply causation|Correlation proves causation]] (''cum hoc ergo propter hoc'') – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.{{sfn|Pirie|2006|p=41}}
** [[Suppressed correlative]] – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.<ref>{{cite book |title=Ethical Theory: An Anthology |chapter=Psychological Egoism |page=193 |first=Joel |last=Feinberg |editor-first=Russ |editor-last=Shafer-Landau |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |series=Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies |year=2007 |isbn=978-1-4051-3320-3 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=By9nCkAvS6EC&pg=PT211}}</ref>
* [[Equivocation]] – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).{{sfn|Damer|2009|p=121}}
** [[Ambiguous middle term]] – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the [[middle term]] is equivocated.{{sfn|Copi|Cohen|1990|p=206}}
* [[Ecological fallacy]] – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.{{sfn|Fischer|1970|p=119}}
* [[Etymological fallacy]] – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.{{sfn|Gula|2002|p=70}}
* [[Fallacy of composition]] – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.{{sfn|Pirie|2006|p=31}}
* [[Fallacy of division]] – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.{{sfn|Pirie|2006|p=53}}
* [[False dilemma]] (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html |title=Fallacy – False Dilemma |accessdate=2011-02-01 |publisher=The Nizkor Project |work=Nizkor}}</ref>
* [[Loaded question|Fallacy of many questions]] (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, ''plurium interrogationum'') – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
* [[Fallacy of the single cause]] (causal oversimplification{{sfn|Damer|2009|p=178}}) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.<!-- Damer describes this in more general terms. -->
* [[False attribution]] – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
** [[Fallacy of quoting out of context]] (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.{{sfn|Gula|2002|p=97}}
* False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea.  Related to the [[appeal to authority]] fallacy.
* [[Gambler's fallacy]] – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect.{{sfn|Damer|2009|p=186}}
* Hedging – using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later.
* [[Historian's fallacy]] – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.{{sfn|Fischer|1970|p=209}} (Not to be confused with [[presentism (literary and historical analysis)|presentism]], which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
* [[Homunculus fallacy]] – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).{{sfn|Bunnin|Yu|2004|loc=[http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?query=homunculus&widen=1&result_number=1&book_id=g9781405106795_9781405106795&from=search&fuzzy=0&type=std&id=g9781405106795_chunk_g97814051067959_ss1-77&slop=1 "Homunculus"]}}
* Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.<ref name="Fallacious Arguments">{{cite web|title=A List Of Fallacious Arguments|url=http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html|accessdate=6 October 2012}}</ref>
* [[If-by-whiskey]] – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
* [[Incomplete comparison]] – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
* [[Inconsistent comparison]] – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
* ''[[Ignoratio elenchi]]'' (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.{{sfn|Copi|Cohen|1990|p=105}}
* [[Kettle logic]] – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
* [[Ludic fallacy]] – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account [[there are known knowns|unknown unknowns]] in determining the probability of events taking place.<ref>{{cite book |first=Nassim |last=Taleb |title=The Black Swan |publisher=Random House |year=2007 |isbn=1-4000-6351-5 |page=309 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=7wMuF4A4XF8C&pg=PA127}}</ref>
* [[Mind projection fallacy]] – when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the world really is.
* [[Moral high ground]] fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.
* [[Moralistic fallacy]] – inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of [[fact–value distinction]]. For instance, inferring ''is'' from ''ought'' is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.
* [[Moving the goalposts]] (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
* [[Naturalistic fallacy]] – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises<ref name="nat-fal">{{Cite journal
| title = TheFreeDictionary
| journal = Naturalistic fallacy
| url = http://www.thefreedictionary.com/naturalistic+fallacy
| postscript = <!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}}}.</ref> in violation of [[fact–value distinction]]. For instance, inferring ''ought'' from ''is'' (sometimes referred to as the ''[[Is–ought problem|is-ought fallacy]]'') is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also [[naturalistic fallacy]] in a stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of [[moralistic fallacy]].
* Naturalistic fallacy fallacy<ref>John Searle, "[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8108(196401)73:1%3C43:HTD%22F%22%3E2.0.CO;2-9 How to Derive 'Ought' from 'Is']", ''The Philosophical Review'', '''73''':1 (January 1964), 43-58</ref> (anti-naturalistic fallacy<ref>Alex Walter, "[http://human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep043348.html The Anti-naturalistic Fallacy: Evolutionary Moral Psychology and the Insistence of Brute Facts]", ''Evolutionary Psychology'', '''4''' (2006), 33-48</ref>) – inferring impossibility to infer any instance of ''ought'' from ''is'' from the general invalidity of ''is-ought fallacy'' mentioned above. For instance, ''is'' <math>P \lor \neg P</math> does imply ''ought'' <math>P \lor \neg P</math> for any proposition <math>P</math>, although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is an instance of [[argument from fallacy]].
* [[Nirvana fallacy]] (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
* ''[[Philosophic burden of proof|Onus probandi]]'' – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
* ''[[Petitio principii]]'' – see begging the question.
* ''[[Post hoc ergo propter hoc]]'' Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster.{{sfn|Damer|2009|p=180}}
* [[Proof by verbosity]] (''argumentum verbosium'', proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also [[Gish Gallop]] and [[argument from authority]].)
* [[Prosecutor's fallacy]] – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of ''some'' false match being found.
* [[Proving too much]] - using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used more generally to reach an absurd conclusion.
* [[Psychologist's fallacy]] – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
* [[Ignoratio elenchi#Red herring|Red herring]] – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.{{sfn|Damer|2009|p=208}}
* [[Direct reference theory|Referential fallacy]]<ref>Semiotics Glossary R, [http://www.cs.oswego.edu/~blue/xhx/books/semiotics/glossaryR/section81/main.html ''Referential fallacy or illusion'']</ref> – assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.
* [[Regression fallacy]] – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the ''post hoc'' fallacy.
* [[Reification (fallacy)|Reification]] (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
* [[Retrospective determinism]] – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
* Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "[[Gish Gallop]]", above.)
* [[Special pleading]] – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
* [[Wrong direction]] – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.{{sfn|Gula|2002|p=135}}
 
===Faulty generalizations===
[[Faulty generalization]]s – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.
* [[Accident (fallacy)|Accident]] – an exception to a generalization is ignored.{{sfn|Pirie|2006|p=5}}
** [[No true Scotsman]] – when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.{{sfn|Flew|1984|loc="No-true-Scotsman move"}}
* [[Cherry picking (fallacy)|Cherry picking]] (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.{{sfn|Hurley|2007|p=155}}
* [[False analogy]] – an [[argument by analogy]] in which the analogy is poorly suited.{{sfn|Damer|2009|p=151}}
* [[Hasty generalization]] (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, ''secundum quid'', converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.{{sfn|Hurley|2007|p=134}}
* [[Inductive fallacy]] – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises which lightly supports it.
* [[Misleading vividness]] – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
* [[Overwhelming exception]] – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.{{sfn|Fischer|1970|p=127}}
* [[Pathetic fallacy]] – when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects.{{sfn|Flew|1984|loc="Pathetic fallacy"}}
* [[Thought-terminating cliché]] – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell [[cognitive dissonance]], conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.
 
===Red herring fallacies===
A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.
 
[[Ignoratio elenchi#Red herring|Red herring]] – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. ''See also [[ignoratio elenchi|irrelevant conclusion]].''
* ''[[Ad hominem]]'' – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
** [[Poisoning the well]] – a type of ''ad hominem'' where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.{{sfn|Walton|2008|p=187}}
** Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal [[abuse]] of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
* ''[[Argumentum ad baculum]]'' (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.{{sfn|Damer|2009|p=106}}
* ''[[Argumentum ad populum]]'' (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.<ref name="Widespread Belief">{{cite web|title=Appeal to Widespread Belief|url=http://mason.gmu.edu/~cmcgloth/portfolio/fallacies/appealwide.html|accessdate=6 October 2012}}</ref>
* Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.
* [[Association fallacy]] (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.
* [[Appeal to authority]] (''argumentum ab auctoritate'') – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.{{sfn|Clark|Clark|2005|pp=13–16}}{{sfn|Walton|1997|p=28}}
** [[Appeal to accomplishment]] – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.
* [[Appeal to consequences]] (''argumentum ad consequentiam'') – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.{{sfn|Walton|2008|p=27}}
* [[Appeal to emotion]] – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning. {{sfn|Damer|2009|p=111}}
** [[Appeal to fear]] – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
** [[Appeal to flattery]] – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.{{sfn|Gula|2002|p=12}}
** [[Appeal to pity]] (''argumentum ad misericordiam'') – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents.{{sfn|Walton|2008|p=128}}
** [[Appeal to ridicule]] – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
** [[Appeal to spite]] – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.
** [[Wishful thinking]] – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.{{sfn|Damer|2009|p=146}}
* [[Appeal to motive]] – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
* [[Appeal to novelty]] (''argumentum novitatis/antiquitatis'') – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.{{sfn|Pirie|2006|p=116}}
* [[Appeal to poverty]] (''argumentum ad Lazarum'') – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of [[appeal to wealth]].){{sfn|Pirie|2006|p=104}}
* [[Appeal to tradition]] (''argumentum ad antiquitam'') – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.{{sfn|Pirie|2006|p=14}}
* [[Appeal to nature]] – wherein judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.{{citation needed|date=December 2012}}
* [[Appeal to wealth]] (''argumentum ad crumenam'') – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).{{sfn|Pirie|2006|p=39}} (Sometimes taken together with the [[appeal to poverty]] as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
* [[Argument from silence]] (''argumentum ex silentio'') – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.
* [[Bulverism]] (Psychogenetic Fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false.<ref name="Fallacious Arguments" />
* [[Chronological snobbery]] – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.{{Citation needed|date=October 2011}}
* [[Fallacy of relative privation]] – dismissing an argument due to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the world.
* [[Genetic fallacy]] – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.{{sfn|Damer|2009|p=93}}
* [[Judgmental language]] – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.
* [[Naturalistic fallacy]] (is–ought fallacy,{{sfn|Dowden|2010|loc=[http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Is-Ought "Is-Ought"]}} naturalistic fallacy{{sfn|Dowden|2010|loc=[http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Naturalistic "Naturalistic"]}}) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
* ''[[Reductio ad Hitlerum]]'' (playing the Nazi card) – comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled. (See also – [[Godwin's law]])
* [[Straw man]] – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.{{sfn|Walton|2008|p=22}}
* [[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]] – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.{{sfn|Curtis|loc=[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy"]}}
* ''[[Tu quoque]]'' ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.{{sfn|Pirie|2006|p=164}}
* [[Two wrongs make a right]] – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.{{sfn|Johnson|Blair|1994|p=122}}
 
==Conditional or questionable fallacies==
* [[Broken window fallacy]] – an argument which disregards lost opportunity costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument that states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes.<ref>{{cite web|last=Beggs|first=Jodi|title=The Broken Window Fallacy|url=http://economics.about.com/od/output-income-prices/a/The-Broken-Window-Fallacy.htm}}</ref>
* [[Definist fallacy]] – involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Naturalistic Fallacy |first=W. K. |last=Frankena |work=Mind |volume=48 |date=October 1939 |pages=464–477 |publisher=Oxford University Press |jstor=2250706 |issue=192}}</ref>
* [[Naturalistic fallacy]] – attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties (sometimes also taken to mean the [[appeal to nature]]){{Citation needed|date=October 2011}} or God's will.
* [[Slippery slope]] (thin edge of the wedge, [[camel's nose]]) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g. if person x does y then z would (probably) occur, leading to q, leading to w, leading to e.){{sfn|Walton|2008|p=315}} This is also related to the [[Reductio ad absurdum]].
 
==See also==
{{Portal|Logic}}
{{Div col}}
*[[List of common misconceptions]]
*[[List of cognitive biases]]
*[[List of memory biases]]
*[[Index of public relations-related articles|List of topics related to public relations and propaganda]]
*''[[Sophistical Refutations]]'', in which Aristotle presented thirteen fallacies
*''[[Straight and Crooked Thinking]]'' (book)
*[[Mathematical fallacy]]
*[[List of paradoxes]]
*[[Reductio ad absurdum]]
{{Div col end}}
 
==References==
;Notes
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
 
;Works
{{Refbegin}}
* {{Cite encyclopedia |editor1-first=Nicholas |editor1-last=Bunnin |editor2-first=Jiyuan |editor2-last=Yu |encyclopedia=The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy |isbn=978-1-4051-0679-5 |publisher=Blackwell |year=2004 |url=http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/book?id=g9781405106795_9781405106795 |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book |first1=Jef |last1=Clark |first2=Theo |last2=Clark |title=Humbug! The Skeptic's Field Guide to Spotting Fallacies in Thinking |year=2005  |publisher=Nifty Books |isbn=0-646-44477-8 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=xyAD0szOrxwC |ref=harv}} Also available as an [http://www.scribd.com/doc/8009498/HUMBUG-eBook-by-Jef-Clark-and-Theo-Clark ebook].
* {{Cite book |first=Irving M. |last=Copi |first2=Carl |last2=Cohen |title=Introduction to Logic |edition=8th |year=1990 |publisher=Macmillan |isbn=978-0-02-325035-4 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=UnIbAQAAMAAJ |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite encyclopedia |first=Gary N |last=Curtis |encyclopedia=Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy Files |url=http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ |accessdate=2011-04-23 |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book |first=T. Edward |last=Damer |title=Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments |edition=6th |publisher=Wadsworth |isbn=978-0-495-09506-4 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-qZabUx0FmkC |year=2009 |accessdate=30 November 2010 |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite encyclopedia |first=Bradley |last=Dowden |encyclopedia=The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |article=Fallacy |chapterurl=http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/ |accessdate=2011-04-22 |date=December 31, 2010 |issn=2161-0002 |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/ |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book |first=David Hackett |last=Fischer |title=Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought |year=1970 |publisher=HarperCollins |isbn=978-0-06-131545-9 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=7_G2UumJCEQC |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite encyclopedia |first=Antony |last=Flew |encyclopedia=A Dictionary of Philosophy |year=1984 |publisher=Macmillan |isbn=978-0-312-20923-0 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Yq0RS45QffYC |ref=harv |title=A Dictionary of Philosophy: Revised Second Edition}}
* {{Cite book |first=Robert J. |last=Gula |title=Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language |year=2002 |publisher=Axios Press |isbn=978-0-9753662-6-4 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ET5s3ct-5lwC |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book |first=Patrick J. |last=Hurley |title=A Concise Introduction to Logic |edition=10th |year=2007 |publisher=Cengage |isbn=978-0-495-50383-5 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XzWWcritSFoC |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book |first1=Ralph H. |last1=Johnson |first2=J. Anthony |last2=Blair |title=Logical Self-Defense |year=1994 |publisher=IDEA |isbn=978-1-932716-18-4 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ojNbr4vYooQC |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book |first=Madsen |last=Pirie |title=How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic |year=2006 |publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group |isbn=0-8264-9006-9 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Gh5UjNNc0v4C |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite encyclopedia |first=W. Kent |last=Wilson |encyclopedia=The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy |edition=2nd |article=Formal fallacy |editor-first=Robert |editor-last=Audi |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-511-07417-2 |pages=316–317 |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book |first=Douglas |last=Walton |title=Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=6UxyS_4GXAkC |year=1997 |publisher=Pennsylvania State University |isbn=0-271-01694-9 |postscript=&nbsp;&nbsp;Paperback ISBN 0-271-01695-7 |ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book |first=Douglas |last=Walton |title=Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach |edition=2nd |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-511-40878-6 |url=http://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logic-Pragmatic-Douglas-Walton/dp/0521886171/ |ref=harv}}
{{Refend}}
 
==Further reading==
The following is a sample of books for further reading, selected for a combination of content, ease of access via the internet, and to provide an indication of published sources that interested readers may review. The titles of some books are self-explanatory. Good books on critical thinking commonly contain sections on fallacies, and some may be listed below.<!--The list will definitely provide citation material for some, perhaps even most, but probably not all, of the article text, if anyone cares enough to capitalise on my effort. Regardless, readers who are looking for information can benefit from this, or any, further reading list. See talk page for further comment-->
*{{Cite book |year=1994 |author=Engel, S. Morris |title=Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap |publisher=Dover Publications |isbn=0-486-28274-0 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jue4i6VVly0C |accessdate=30 November 2010}}
*{{Cite book |year=2004 |author=Hughes, William |author2=Lavery, Jonathan |title=Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills |edition=4th  |publisher=Broadview Press |isbn=1-55111-573-5 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Rot3obO0iRoC |accessdate=30 November 2010}}
*{{Cite book |year=2006 |author=Paul, Richard |author2=Elder, Linda |title=Thinker's Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery |publisher=Foundation for Critical Thinking |isbn=978-0-944583-27-2  |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=shrn4lTg_RkC |accessdate=30 November 2010}}
*{{Cite book |year=2010 |author=Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter |author2=Fogelin, Robert |title=Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic |edition=8th |publisher=Wadsworth Cengage Learning |isbn=978-0-495-60395-5 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lCPdoLjftxAC |accessdate=30 November 2010}}
*{{Cite book |year=1953 |author=Thouless, Robert H |authorlink=Robert H. Thouless |title=Straight and Crooked Thinking |publisher=Pan Books |url=http://neglectedbooks.com/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking.pdf |accessdate=30 November 2010}}
*{{Cite book |year=2007 |author=Tindale, Christopher W |title=Fallacies and Argument Appraisal |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |series=Critical Reasoning and Argumentation |isbn=978-0-521-84208-2 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ved8b9Cr8Z8C |accessdate=30 November 2010}}
 
==External links==
* [http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm Fallacies: alphabetic list (full list)]
* [http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/acadwrite/logic.html Logical Fallacies], Literacy Education Online
* [http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ LogicalFallacies.info]
* [http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/welcome.htm Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies] (mirror)
* [http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2005/01/fallacy-list.html The Skeptic's Field Guide: Fallacy List]
* [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html The Taxonomy of Logical Fallacies], FallacyFiles.org
* [http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/ Visualization: Rhetological Fallacies], InformationIsBeautiful.net
 
{{Formal fallacy}}
{{Informal fallacy}}
{{Relevance fallacies}}
{{Logic}}
{{Psychological manipulation}}
 
{{DEFAULTSORT:List Of Fallacies}}
[[Category:Logical fallacies|*]]
[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Philosophy-related lists|Fallacies]]
 
[[bg:Списък с логически заблуди]]
[[de:Fehlschluss]]
[[es:Prejuicio cognitivo]]
[[zh:謬論列表]]

Revision as of 07:43, 30 April 2013

28 year-old Painting Investments Worker Truman from Regina, usually spends time with pastimes for instance interior design, property developers in new launch ec Singapore and writing. Last month just traveled to City of the Renaissance. A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.

Formal fallacies

Mining Engineer (Excluding Oil ) Truman from Alma, loves to spend time knotting, largest property developers in singapore developers in singapore and stamp collecting. Recently had a family visit to Urnes Stave Church. A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form.Template:Sfn All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

Propositional fallacies

A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives which occur in it (most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
Types of Propositional fallacies:

Quantification fallacies

A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of Quantification fallacies:

Formal syllogistic fallacies

Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

Informal fallacies

Mining Engineer (Excluding Oil ) Truman from Alma, loves to spend time knotting, largest property developers in singapore developers in singapore and stamp collecting. Recently had a family visit to Urnes Stave Church. Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.Template:Sfn

  • Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.Template:Sfn
  • Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.[5][6]
  • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
  • Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
  • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.Template:Sfn
  • Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.
  • Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
  • Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.
  • (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
  • Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
  • Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
  • Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.Template:Sfn
  • Correlative-based fallacies
  • Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).Template:Sfn
  • Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.Template:Sfn
  • Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.Template:Sfn
  • Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.Template:Sfn
  • Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.Template:Sfn
  • False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[8]
  • Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
  • Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplificationTemplate:Sfn) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
  • False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
  • False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.
  • Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect.Template:Sfn
  • Hedging – using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later.
  • Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.Template:Sfn (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
  • Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).Template:Sfn
  • Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.[9]
  • If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
  • Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
  • Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
  • Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.Template:Sfn
  • Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
  • Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.[10]
  • Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the world really is.
  • Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.
  • Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.
  • Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
  • Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises[11] in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring ought from is (sometimes referred to as the is-ought fallacy) is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
  • Naturalistic fallacy fallacy[12] (anti-naturalistic fallacy[13]) – inferring impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy mentioned above. For instance, is P¬P does imply ought P¬P for any proposition P, although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is an instance of argument from fallacy.
  • Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
  • Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
  • Petitio principii – see begging the question.
  • Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster.Template:Sfn
  • Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
  • Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
  • Proving too much - using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used more generally to reach an absurd conclusion.
  • Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
  • Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.Template:Sfn
  • Referential fallacy[14] – assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.
  • Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
  • Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
  • Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
  • Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
  • Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
  • Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.Template:Sfn

Faulty generalizations

Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.

  • Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.Template:Sfn
  • Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.Template:Sfn
  • False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.Template:Sfn
  • Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.Template:Sfn
  • Inductive fallacy – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises which lightly supports it.
  • Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
  • Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.Template:Sfn
  • Pathetic fallacy – when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate objects.Template:Sfn
  • Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.

Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.

  • Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
    • Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.Template:Sfn
    • Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
  • Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.Template:Sfn
  • Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.[15]
  • Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.
  • Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.
  • Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn
  • Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.Template:Sfn
  • Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning. Template:Sfn
    • Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
    • Appeal to flattery – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.Template:Sfn
    • Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents.Template:Sfn
    • Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
    • Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.
    • Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.Template:Sfn
  • Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
  • Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis/antiquitatis) – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.Template:Sfn
  • Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)Template:Sfn
  • Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.Template:Sfn
  • Appeal to nature – wherein judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.Potter or Ceramic Artist Truman Bedell from Rexton, has interests which include ceramics, best property developers in singapore developers in singapore and scrabble. Was especially enthused after visiting Alejandro de Humboldt National Park.
  • Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).Template:Sfn (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
  • Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.
  • Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false.[9]
  • Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.Potter or Ceramic Artist Truman Bedell from Rexton, has interests which include ceramics, best property developers in singapore developers in singapore and scrabble. Was especially enthused after visiting Alejandro de Humboldt National Park.
  • Fallacy of relative privation – dismissing an argument due to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the world.
  • Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.Template:Sfn
  • Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.
  • Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy,Template:Sfn naturalistic fallacyTemplate:Sfn) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
  • Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card) – comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled. (See also – Godwin's law)
  • Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.Template:Sfn
  • Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.Template:Sfn
  • Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.Template:Sfn
  • Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.Template:Sfn

Conditional or questionable fallacies

  • Broken window fallacy – an argument which disregards lost opportunity costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument that states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes.[16]
  • Definist fallacy – involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.[17]
  • Naturalistic fallacy – attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties (sometimes also taken to mean the appeal to nature)Potter or Ceramic Artist Truman Bedell from Rexton, has interests which include ceramics, best property developers in singapore developers in singapore and scrabble. Was especially enthused after visiting Alejandro de Humboldt National Park. or God's will.
  • Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g. if person x does y then z would (probably) occur, leading to q, leading to w, leading to e.)Template:Sfn This is also related to the Reductio ad absurdum.

See also

Sportspersons Hyslop from Nicolet, usually spends time with pastimes for example martial arts, property developers condominium in singapore singapore and hot rods. Maintains a trip site and has lots to write about after touring Gulf of Porto: Calanche of Piana. Organisational Psychologist Alfonzo Lester from Timmins, enjoys pinochle, property developers in new launch singapore property and textiles. Gets motivation through travel and just spent 7 days at Alejandro de Humboldt National Park.

42 year-old Environmental Consultant Merle Eure from Hudson, really loves snowboarding, property developers in new launch ec singapore and cosplay. Maintains a trip blog and has lots to write about after visiting Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (formerly Victoria Terminus).

References

Notes

43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.

Works

Template:Refbegin

Template:Refend

Further reading

The following is a sample of books for further reading, selected for a combination of content, ease of access via the internet, and to provide an indication of published sources that interested readers may review. The titles of some books are self-explanatory. Good books on critical thinking commonly contain sections on fallacies, and some may be listed below.

  • 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  • 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  • 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  • 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  • 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  • 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534

External links

Template:Formal fallacy Template:Informal fallacy Template:Relevance fallacies Template:Logic Template:Psychological manipulation

bg:Списък с логически заблуди de:Fehlschluss es:Prejuicio cognitivo zh:謬論列表

  1. http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/appeal-to-probability/
  2. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-an-argument/deductive-logic-arguments/appeal-to-probability-1
  3. Template:Cite web
  4. Template:Cite web
  5. Template:Cite web
  6. Template:Cite web
  7. 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  8. Template:Cite web
  9. 9.0 9.1 Template:Cite web
  10. 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  11. One of the biggest reasons investing in a Singapore new launch is an effective things is as a result of it is doable to be lent massive quantities of money at very low interest rates that you should utilize to purchase it. Then, if property values continue to go up, then you'll get a really high return on funding (ROI). Simply make sure you purchase one of the higher properties, reminiscent of the ones at Fernvale the Riverbank or any Singapore landed property Get Earnings by means of Renting

    In its statement, the singapore property listing - website link, government claimed that the majority citizens buying their first residence won't be hurt by the new measures. Some concessions can even be prolonged to chose teams of consumers, similar to married couples with a minimum of one Singaporean partner who are purchasing their second property so long as they intend to promote their first residential property. Lower the LTV limit on housing loans granted by monetary establishments regulated by MAS from 70% to 60% for property purchasers who are individuals with a number of outstanding housing loans on the time of the brand new housing purchase. Singapore Property Measures - 30 August 2010 The most popular seek for the number of bedrooms in Singapore is 4, followed by 2 and three. Lush Acres EC @ Sengkang

    Discover out more about real estate funding in the area, together with info on international funding incentives and property possession. Many Singaporeans have been investing in property across the causeway in recent years, attracted by comparatively low prices. However, those who need to exit their investments quickly are likely to face significant challenges when trying to sell their property – and could finally be stuck with a property they can't sell. Career improvement programmes, in-house valuation, auctions and administrative help, venture advertising and marketing, skilled talks and traisning are continuously planned for the sales associates to help them obtain better outcomes for his or her shoppers while at Knight Frank Singapore. No change Present Rules

    Extending the tax exemption would help. The exemption, which may be as a lot as $2 million per family, covers individuals who negotiate a principal reduction on their existing mortgage, sell their house short (i.e., for lower than the excellent loans), or take part in a foreclosure course of. An extension of theexemption would seem like a common-sense means to assist stabilize the housing market, but the political turmoil around the fiscal-cliff negotiations means widespread sense could not win out. Home Minority Chief Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) believes that the mortgage relief provision will be on the table during the grand-cut price talks, in response to communications director Nadeam Elshami. Buying or promoting of blue mild bulbs is unlawful.

    A vendor's stamp duty has been launched on industrial property for the primary time, at rates ranging from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. The Authorities might be trying to reassure the market that they aren't in opposition to foreigners and PRs investing in Singapore's property market. They imposed these measures because of extenuating components available in the market." The sale of new dual-key EC models will even be restricted to multi-generational households only. The models have two separate entrances, permitting grandparents, for example, to dwell separately. The vendor's stamp obligation takes effect right this moment and applies to industrial property and plots which might be offered inside three years of the date of buy. JLL named Best Performing Property Brand for second year running

    The data offered is for normal info purposes only and isn't supposed to be personalised investment or monetary advice. Motley Fool Singapore contributor Stanley Lim would not personal shares in any corporations talked about. Singapore private home costs increased by 1.eight% within the fourth quarter of 2012, up from 0.6% within the earlier quarter. Resale prices of government-built HDB residences which are usually bought by Singaporeans, elevated by 2.5%, quarter on quarter, the quickest acquire in five quarters. And industrial property, prices are actually double the levels of three years ago. No withholding tax in the event you sell your property. All your local information regarding vital HDB policies, condominium launches, land growth, commercial property and more

    There are various methods to go about discovering the precise property. Some local newspapers (together with the Straits Instances ) have categorised property sections and many local property brokers have websites. Now there are some specifics to consider when buying a 'new launch' rental. Intended use of the unit Every sale begins with 10 p.c low cost for finish of season sale; changes to 20 % discount storewide; follows by additional reduction of fiftyand ends with last discount of 70 % or extra. Typically there is even a warehouse sale or transferring out sale with huge mark-down of costs for stock clearance. Deborah Regulation from Expat Realtor shares her property market update, plus prime rental residences and houses at the moment available to lease Esparina EC @ Sengkang.
  12. John Searle, "How to Derive 'Ought' from 'Is'", The Philosophical Review, 73:1 (January 1964), 43-58
  13. Alex Walter, "The Anti-naturalistic Fallacy: Evolutionary Moral Psychology and the Insistence of Brute Facts", Evolutionary Psychology, 4 (2006), 33-48
  14. Semiotics Glossary R, Referential fallacy or illusion
  15. Template:Cite web
  16. Template:Cite web
  17. One of the biggest reasons investing in a Singapore new launch is an effective things is as a result of it is doable to be lent massive quantities of money at very low interest rates that you should utilize to purchase it. Then, if property values continue to go up, then you'll get a really high return on funding (ROI). Simply make sure you purchase one of the higher properties, reminiscent of the ones at Fernvale the Riverbank or any Singapore landed property Get Earnings by means of Renting

    In its statement, the singapore property listing - website link, government claimed that the majority citizens buying their first residence won't be hurt by the new measures. Some concessions can even be prolonged to chose teams of consumers, similar to married couples with a minimum of one Singaporean partner who are purchasing their second property so long as they intend to promote their first residential property. Lower the LTV limit on housing loans granted by monetary establishments regulated by MAS from 70% to 60% for property purchasers who are individuals with a number of outstanding housing loans on the time of the brand new housing purchase. Singapore Property Measures - 30 August 2010 The most popular seek for the number of bedrooms in Singapore is 4, followed by 2 and three. Lush Acres EC @ Sengkang

    Discover out more about real estate funding in the area, together with info on international funding incentives and property possession. Many Singaporeans have been investing in property across the causeway in recent years, attracted by comparatively low prices. However, those who need to exit their investments quickly are likely to face significant challenges when trying to sell their property – and could finally be stuck with a property they can't sell. Career improvement programmes, in-house valuation, auctions and administrative help, venture advertising and marketing, skilled talks and traisning are continuously planned for the sales associates to help them obtain better outcomes for his or her shoppers while at Knight Frank Singapore. No change Present Rules

    Extending the tax exemption would help. The exemption, which may be as a lot as $2 million per family, covers individuals who negotiate a principal reduction on their existing mortgage, sell their house short (i.e., for lower than the excellent loans), or take part in a foreclosure course of. An extension of theexemption would seem like a common-sense means to assist stabilize the housing market, but the political turmoil around the fiscal-cliff negotiations means widespread sense could not win out. Home Minority Chief Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) believes that the mortgage relief provision will be on the table during the grand-cut price talks, in response to communications director Nadeam Elshami. Buying or promoting of blue mild bulbs is unlawful.

    A vendor's stamp duty has been launched on industrial property for the primary time, at rates ranging from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. The Authorities might be trying to reassure the market that they aren't in opposition to foreigners and PRs investing in Singapore's property market. They imposed these measures because of extenuating components available in the market." The sale of new dual-key EC models will even be restricted to multi-generational households only. The models have two separate entrances, permitting grandparents, for example, to dwell separately. The vendor's stamp obligation takes effect right this moment and applies to industrial property and plots which might be offered inside three years of the date of buy. JLL named Best Performing Property Brand for second year running

    The data offered is for normal info purposes only and isn't supposed to be personalised investment or monetary advice. Motley Fool Singapore contributor Stanley Lim would not personal shares in any corporations talked about. Singapore private home costs increased by 1.eight% within the fourth quarter of 2012, up from 0.6% within the earlier quarter. Resale prices of government-built HDB residences which are usually bought by Singaporeans, elevated by 2.5%, quarter on quarter, the quickest acquire in five quarters. And industrial property, prices are actually double the levels of three years ago. No withholding tax in the event you sell your property. All your local information regarding vital HDB policies, condominium launches, land growth, commercial property and more

    There are various methods to go about discovering the precise property. Some local newspapers (together with the Straits Instances ) have categorised property sections and many local property brokers have websites. Now there are some specifics to consider when buying a 'new launch' rental. Intended use of the unit Every sale begins with 10 p.c low cost for finish of season sale; changes to 20 % discount storewide; follows by additional reduction of fiftyand ends with last discount of 70 % or extra. Typically there is even a warehouse sale or transferring out sale with huge mark-down of costs for stock clearance. Deborah Regulation from Expat Realtor shares her property market update, plus prime rental residences and houses at the moment available to lease Esparina EC @ Sengkang