5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 28:
Line 28: − + − + Line 86:
Line 86: − + − + Line 103:
Line 103: − + − + Line 118:
Line 118: − + Line 125:
Line 125: − + Line 138:
Line 138: − + Line 158:
Line 158: − + Line 169:
Line 169: − An argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:+ Line 175:
Line 175: − + Line 204:
Line 204: − 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 237:
Line 237: − + Line 259:
Line 259: − +
spellcheck (8 1/3 pages in word woo hoo!)
====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:
*Person A argues that P
*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Person A is Q
*Q is some deragatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false
*Therefore P is false
''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 fallacy follows the form:
''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 fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*If P then Q
*P can not be shown true
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false
*Therefore Q is false
For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exists".
For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".
This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."
This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."
====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In a this type of argument, a close temportal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:
*P happened, then Q happened
*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore P caused Q
*Therefore P caused Q
*Therefore R is true
*Therefore R is true
For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possesion."
For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."
===Overgeneralization===
===Overgeneralization===
*P is Q
*P is Q
*P is in R
*P is in R
*Therefor R is Q
*Therefore R is Q
For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"
For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"
*P says Q
*P says Q
*P is an authority in his feild
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true
*Therefore Q is true
:''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 is an argument which includes in its reasoning:
A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:
*P
*P
===Proof by assertion===
===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:
*P is true
*P is true
Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.
Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.
Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, manufactuing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.
Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.
====Circular reasoning====
====Circular reasoning====
: ''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) -->
: ''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) -->
This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:
*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory A says that if P then Q
===Amphiboli===
===Amphiboli===
Amphiboli is an ambiguity which arises though loos or awkward phrasing:
Amphiboli is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:
For example: "Save soap and waste paper".
For example: "Save soap and waste paper".
===Equivocation===
===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then use a different meaning in the conlcusion than in the premise.
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.
For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."
For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."