| Line 27: |
Line 27: |
| | ''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true "The absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." The charge of argument from silence applies in a situation in which ''no reasonable attempt has yet been made'' to develop evidence to confirm or contradict the proposition in question. | | ''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true "The absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." The charge of argument from silence applies in a situation in which ''no reasonable attempt has yet been made'' to develop evidence to confirm or contradict the proposition in question. |
| | | | |
| − | ==Fallacies of Presumption== | + | ===Proof by authority=== |
| − | Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.
| + | Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]]. |
| | | | |
| − | ==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
| + | A classic example of argument from 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. This kind of argument often appears in commercial advertising or political electioneering. |
| − | Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Catalog of Logical Fallacies== | + | ===False cause=== |
| − | | + | ''non causa pro causa'' |
| − | ===Overgeneralization===
| |
| − | An argument that attempts to apply a principle to circumstances beyond the scope of its original formulation or of any reliable demonstration. The application of [[Isaac Newton]]'s original theory of relative velocity (which is that it was simply additive) to speeds approaching that of light was an overgeneralization, as [[relativity]] would later show.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Overgeneralization also is the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Non sequitur=== | | ===Non sequitur=== |
| Line 45: |
Line 40: |
| | ([[Latin]]: "It does not follow"); An argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection. | | ([[Latin]]: "It does not follow"); An argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection. |
| | | | |
| − | ===Proof by authority=== | + | ===Overgeneralization=== |
| − | Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ([[Latin]] "Argument proceeding from clout"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].
| + | Hasty generalization (aka converse accident) |
| | | | |
| − | A classic example of argument from 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. This kind of argument also appears in commercial advertising or political electioneering.
| + | An argument that attempts to apply a principle to circumstances beyond the scope of its original formulation or of any reliable demonstration. The application of [[Isaac Newton]]'s original theory of relative velocity (which is that it was simply additive) to speeds approaching that of light was an overgeneralization, as [[relativity]] would later show. |
| | | | |
| | + | Overgeneralization also is the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group. |
| | | | |
| | ===Proof by assertion=== | | ===Proof by assertion=== |
| | An argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. The typical form of this "argument" is the "conclusion" of a [[non sequitur]]. | | An argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. The typical form of this "argument" is the "conclusion" of a [[non sequitur]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Fallacies of Presumption== |
| | + | Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made. |
| | | | |
| | ===Circular reasoning=== | | ===Circular reasoning=== |
| | [[Circular reasoning]] is a form of proof-by-assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise. | | [[Circular reasoning]] is a form of proof-by-assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise. |
| | | | |
| | + | ==Fallacies of Ambiguity== |
| | + | Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used. |
| | | | |
| | + | ==Catalog of Logical Fallacies== |
| | | | |
| | ===Proving too much=== | | ===Proving too much=== |