|
Appeal To Probability
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility, also known as ''possibiliter ergo probabiliter'', "possibly, therefore probably") is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it is possibly the case. The fact that an event is possible does not imply that the event is probable, nor that the event was realized. Example A fallacious appeal to possibility: :If it ''can'' happen . :It ''will'' happen. :Something can go wrong . :Therefore, something will go wrong . : :If I do not bring my umbrella :It will rain. . Murphy's law is a (typically deliberate, tongue-in-cheek) invocation of the fallacy. See also * Slippery slope In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decisi ... References Notes Bibliography * * {{DEFAULTSORT:Appeal To Probability Inductiv ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Formal Fallacy
In logic and philosophical logic, philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning rendered validity (logic), invalid by a flaw in its logical structure. propositional calculus, Propositional logic, for example, is concerned with the meanings of sentences and the relationships between them. It focuses on the role of logical operators, called propositional connectives, in determining whether a sentence is true. An error in the sequence will result in a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false logical consequence, conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy in which deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic. While a logical argument is a ''non sequitur'' if, and only if, it is invalid, the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Inductive Argument
Inductive reasoning refers to a variety of methods of reasoning in which the conclusion of an argument is supported not with deductive certainty, but with some degree of probability. Unlike ''deductive'' reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion is ''certain'', given the premises are correct, inductive reasoning produces conclusions that are at best ''probable'', given the evidence provided. Types The types of inductive reasoning include generalization, prediction, statistical syllogism, argument from analogy, and causal inference. There are also differences in how their results are regarded. Inductive generalization A generalization (more accurately, an ''inductive generalization'') proceeds from premises about a sample to a conclusion about the population. The observation obtained from this sample is projected onto the broader population. : The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A. : Therefore, the proportion Q of the population has attrib ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Murphy's Law
Murphy's law is an adage or epigram that is typically stated as: "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." Though similar statements and concepts have been made over the course of history, the law itself was coined by, and named after, American aerospace engineer Edward A. Murphy Jr.; its exact origins are debated, but it is generally agreed it originated from Murphy and his team following a mishap during rocket sled tests some time between 1948 and 1949, and was finalized and first popularized by testing project head John Stapp during a later press conference. Murphy's original quote was the precautionary design advice that "If there are two or more ways to do something and one of those results in a catastrophe, then someone will do it that way." The law entered wider public knowledge in the late 1970s with the publication of Arthur Bloch's 1977 book ''Murphy's Law, and Other Reasons Why Things Go WRONG'', which included other variations and Corollary, corollaries of the law. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tongue-in-cheek
Tongue-in-cheek is an idiom that describes a humorous or sarcastic statement expressed in a serious manner. History The phrase originally expressed contempt, but by 1842 had acquired its modern meaning. Early users of the phrase include Sir Walter Scott in his 1828 ''The Fair Maid of Perth''. The physical act of putting one's tongue into one's cheek once signified contempt. For example, in Tobias Smollett's ''The Adventures of Roderick Random,'' which was published in 1748, the eponymous hero takes a coach to Bath and on the way apprehends a highwayman. This provokes an altercation with a less brave passenger: The phrase appears in 1828 in ''The Fair Maid of Perth'' by Sir Walter Scott: It is not clear how Scott intended readers to understand the phrase. The more modern ironic sense appeared in a poem in ''The Ingoldsby Legends'' (1842) by the English clergyman Richard Barham Richard Harris Barham (6 December 1788 – 17 June 1845) was an English cleric of the Church of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Slippery Slope
In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the Warrant (rhetoric), warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect). This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. When the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects, this is called the slippery slope fallacy. This is a type of informal fallacy, and is a subset of continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of mi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Inductive Fallacies
A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics. It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group from what one knows about just one or a few people: * If one meets a rude person from a given country X, one may suspect that most people in country X are rude. * If one sees only white swans, one may suspect that all swans are white. Expressed in more precise philosophical language, a fallacy of defective induction is a conclusion that has been made on the basis of weak premises, or one which is not justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions, yet only weakly buttress the conclusions, hence a faulty generalization is pr ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
