Changes

214 bytes removed ,  02:22, March 23, 2008
no edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:     
===Proof by numbers===
 
===Proof by numbers===
−
Also known as "appeal to the people" (lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. "Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology. One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others.
+
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. "Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology. One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others.
    
===Appeal to pity===
 
===Appeal to pity===
Line 23: Line 23:  
==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
 
==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
 
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.
 
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.
 +
 +
===Argument from silence===
 +
''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 absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." The charge of argument from silence applies in a situation in which ''no reasonable attempt has yet been made'' to develop evidence to confirm or contradict the proposition in question.
    
==Fallacies of Presumption==
 
==Fallacies of Presumption==
Line 54: Line 57:  
[[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.
   −
===Argument from silence===
  −
Argument from silence (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') is an assertion that a proposition is false merely because no one has yet asserted evidence to confirm it--or that a proposition is true merely because no one has yet asserted evidence to contradict it. "The absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." The charge of argument from silence applies in a situation in which ''no reasonable attempt has yet been made'' to develop evidence to confirm or contradict the proposition in question.
     −
This is the opposite extreme from "manufacturing facts to support a theory," described below. The best aid to striking a balance that avoids these two opposing fallacies is [[Occam's razor]].
      
===Proving too much===
 
===Proving too much===
5,580

edits