Difference between revisions of "Weak analogy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(new article) |
(added link to Fallacy of analogy) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*Therefore, ''A'' also has property ''P''. | *Therefore, ''A'' also has property ''P''. | ||
The argument is fallacious because ''A'' and ''B'' could be different in a way that is relevant to whether ''A'' has property ''P''. In other words, everything is "like" everything else in some way, but not all things share the same properties. A common humorous example is "God is love; love is blind; Stevie Wonder is blind; therefore, Stevie Wonder is God." | The argument is fallacious because ''A'' and ''B'' could be different in a way that is relevant to whether ''A'' has property ''P''. In other words, everything is "like" everything else in some way, but not all things share the same properties. A common humorous example is "God is love; love is blind; Stevie Wonder is blind; therefore, Stevie Wonder is God." | ||
| + | |||
| + | See also [[Fallacy of analogy]]. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]] | [[Category:Logical Fallacies]] | ||
Revision as of 18:28, September 24, 2018
A weak analogy, also called a false analogy, faulty analogy, and questionable analogy,[1] is an informal logical fallacy that is based on faulty use of an analogy. The fallacy takes the following form:
- A is like B in some way.
- B has property P.
- Therefore, A also has property P.
The argument is fallacious because A and B could be different in a way that is relevant to whether A has property P. In other words, everything is "like" everything else in some way, but not all things share the same properties. A common humorous example is "God is love; love is blind; Stevie Wonder is blind; therefore, Stevie Wonder is God."
See also Fallacy of analogy.