Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,166
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: − + Line 57:
Line 57: − + Line 64:
Line 64: − + Line 100:
Line 100: − + Line 127:
Line 127: − + Line 141:
Line 141: − + Line 178:
Line 178: − + Line 201:
Line 201: − + Line 213:
Line 213: − + Line 271:
Line 271: − + Line 285:
Line 285: − +
Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: Therefore → Therefore, (11)
*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true
*Therefore, P is true
For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.
For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.
*Person A is Q
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false
*Therefore, P is false
====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect
*Therefore, Person A's argument is incorrect
For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.
For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.
*If P then Q
*If P then Q
*P is false
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false
*Therefore, Q is false
Formally, the error arises in confusing "If P, then Q" with "If and only if P, then Q."
Formally, the error arises in confusing "If P, then Q" with "If and only if P, then Q."
*Person A is in set P
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q
*Therefore, Person A is not subject to Q
For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.
For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.
*If P then Q
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false
*Therefore, Q is false
For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".
For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".
*P
*P
*Therefore R is true
*Therefore, R is true
For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."
For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."
*P says Q
*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true
*Therefore, Q is true
A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.
A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.
*Some P are Q
*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q
*Therefore, R is Q
For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".
For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Q and R are mutually exclusive
*Q and R are mutually exclusive
*Therefore theory A is wrong
*Therefore, theory A is wrong
For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
*If P then Q
*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Person A says P
*Therefore Q
*Therefore, Q
Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:
Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example: