| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | ==Fallacies of Relevance== | | ==Fallacies of Relevance== |
| | Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between premise and conclusion. | | Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between premise and conclusion. |
| | + | |
| | + | ===Special pleading=== |
| | + | : ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]'' |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading is a special case of the double standard, and is one of the most despicable forms of hypocrisy. A political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading. |
| | + | |
| | | | |
| | ===Proof by numbers=== | | ===Proof by numbers=== |
| Line 64: |
Line 70: |
| | ==Fallacies of Presumption== | | ==Fallacies of Presumption== |
| | Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made. | | Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made. |
| | + | |
| | + | ===Loaded question=== |
| | + | : ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]'' |
| | + | |
| | + | A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?" (It is also an example of proof by numbers of adherents.) |
| | | | |
| | ===Proof by assertion=== | | ===Proof by assertion=== |
| | An argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. The typical form of this "argument" is the "conclusion" of a [[non sequitur]]. | | An argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. The typical form of this "argument" is the "conclusion" of a [[non sequitur]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | ====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]]'' |
| | + | |
| | + | The judgment of a theory by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This is a variation on proof-by-assertion. |
| | | | |
| | ===Manufacturing facts from a theory=== | | ===Manufacturing facts from a theory=== |
| Line 77: |
Line 93: |
| | ===Circular reasoning=== | | ===Circular reasoning=== |
| | [[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. |
| | + | |
| | + | ===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. |
| | + | |
| | + | ===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. |
| | + | |
| | + | Contradictions normally form part of a proof by ''exclusion''. But contradictory arguments are some of the most common flawed arguments, and are closely akin to double standards (see above). |
| | | | |
| | ==Fallacies of Ambiguity== | | ==Fallacies of Ambiguity== |
| Line 88: |
Line 112: |
| | | | |
| | ===Division=== | | ===Division=== |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Catalog of Logical Fallacies==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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]]''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The judgment of a theory by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This is a variation on proof-by-assertion.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Contradictions normally form part of a proof by ''exclusion''. But contradictory arguments are some of the most common flawed arguments, and are closely akin to double standards (see above).
| |
| | | | |
| | ===Conflation=== | | ===Conflation=== |
| | [[Conflation]] is the treatment of two different concepts as one. The most common form of conflation informs the proverbial accusation, "You are comparing apples to oranges." | | [[Conflation]] is the treatment of two different concepts as one. The most common form of conflation informs the proverbial accusation, "You are comparing apples to oranges." |
| | | | |
| − | ===Loaded question=== | + | ==Catalog of Logical Fallacies== |
| − | : ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''
| |
| − | | |
| − | A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?" (It is also an example of proof by numbers of adherents.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Special pleading===
| |
| − | : ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading is a special case of the double standard, and is one of the most despicable forms of hypocrisy. A political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.
| |