| Line 115: |
Line 115: |
| | A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form: | | A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form: |
| | | | |
| − | *If P then Q | + | *P |
| | *Therefore R is true | | *Therefore R is true |
| | + | |
| | + | For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possesion." |
| | | | |
| | ===Overgeneralization=== | | ===Overgeneralization=== |
| − | Hasty generalization (aka converse accident)
| + | Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form: |
| | | | |
| − | 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.
| + | *P is Q |
| | + | *P is in R |
| | + | *Therefor R is Q |
| | | | |
| − | 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. | + | For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!" |
| | + | |
| | + | Overgeneralization 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. |
| | | | |
| | ====Proving too much==== | | ====Proving too much==== |
| − | A form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.
| + | Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented. |
| | | | |
| | ===Proof by authority=== | | ===Proof by authority=== |
| | 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]]. | | 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]]. |
| | | | |
| − | 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. | + | *P says Q |
| | + | *P is an authority in his feild |
| | + | *Therefore Q is true |
| | + | |
| | + | 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 often appears in commercial advertising or political electioneering. |
| | | | |
| | ==Fallacies of Presumption== | | ==Fallacies of Presumption== |