| Line 151: |
Line 151: |
| | :''Main article: [[Contradiction]]'' | | :''Main article: [[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. A contradiction follows the form: | + | 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. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning: |
| | | | |
| | *P | | *P |
| Line 182: |
Line 182: |
| | | | |
| | ====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong==== | | ====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]]'' | + | : ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' <!-- note: a Google search for this phrase show that it is exclusive to CreationWiki (well, and now Conservapedia) --> |
| − | <!-- note: a Google search for this phrase show that it is exclusive to CreationWiki (well, and now Conservapedia) --> | + | |
| | The judgment of a theory by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form: | | The judgment of a theory by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form: |
| | | | |
| Line 195: |
Line 195: |
| | :''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]] | | :''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]] |
| | | | |
| − | A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. Straw man arguments are often found in politics. | + | A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form: |
| | + | |
| | + | *If P then Q |
| | + | *Person A says P |
| | + | *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: |
| Line 205: |
Line 209: |
| | | | |
| | ===Tautology=== | | ===Tautology=== |
| | + | :''Main article: [[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. | | 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. |
| | | | |