5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: + + + + + + Line 64:
Line 70: + + + + + + + + + + Line 77:
Line 93: + + + + + + + + Line 88:
Line 112: − − ==Catalog of Logical Fallacies== − − ===Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong=== − : ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' − − The judgment of a theory by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This is a variation on proof-by-assertion. − − − − ===Tautology=== − A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise. − − ===Contradiction=== − A [[contradiction]] is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradition, some of the premises must be false. − − Contradictions normally form part of a proof by ''exclusion''. But contradictory arguments are some of the most common flawed arguments, and are closely akin to double standards (see above). − + − : ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]'' − − A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?" (It is also an example of proof by numbers of adherents.) − − ===Special pleading=== − : ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]'' − − [[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading is a special case of the double standard, and is one of the most despicable forms of hypocrisy. 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.
no edit summary
==Fallacies of Relevance==
==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between premise and conclusion.
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between premise and conclusion.
===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''
[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading is a special case of the double standard, and is one of the most despicable forms of hypocrisy. 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.
===Proof by numbers===
===Proof by numbers===
==Fallacies of Presumption==
==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.
===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''
A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?" (It is also an example of proof by numbers of adherents.)
===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]].
====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]''
The judgment of a theory by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This is a variation on proof-by-assertion.
===Manufacturing facts from a theory===
===Manufacturing facts from a theory===
===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.
===Tautology===
A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.
===Contradiction===
A [[contradiction]] is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradition, some of the premises must be false.
Contradictions normally form part of a proof by ''exclusion''. But contradictory arguments are some of the most common flawed arguments, and are closely akin to double standards (see above).
==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
===Division===
===Division===
===Conflation===
===Conflation===
[[Conflation]] is the treatment of two different concepts as one. The most common form of conflation informs the proverbial accusation, "You are comparing apples to oranges."
[[Conflation]] is the treatment of two different concepts as one. The most common form of conflation informs the proverbial accusation, "You are comparing apples to oranges."
===Loaded question===
==Catalog of Logical Fallacies==