|
Attacking Faulty Reasoning
''Attacking Faulty Reasoning'' is a textbook on logical fallacies by T. Edward Damer that has been used for many years in a number of college courses on logic, critical thinking, argumentation, and philosophy. It explains 60 of the most commonly committed fallacies. Each of the fallacies is concisely defined and illustrated with several relevant examples. For each fallacy, the text gives suggestions about how to address or to "attack" the fallacy when it is encountered. The organization of the fallacies comes from the author’s own fallacy theory, which defines a fallacy as a violation of one of the five criteria of a good argument: * the argument must be structurally well-formed; * the premises must be relevant; * the premises must be acceptable; * the premises must be sufficient in number, weight, and kind; * there must be an effective rebuttal of challenges to the argument. Each fallacy falls into at least one of Damer's five fallacy categories, which derive from the above ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Fallacies
In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (; Latin for " tdoes not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.Harry J. Gensler, ''The A to Z of Logic'' (2010) p. 74. Rowman & Littlefield, It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where 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 fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g., affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, "''non s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument From Ignorance
Argument from ignorance (from la, argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ''ignorance'' represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century. Examples * "I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logic Books
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or of logical truths. It is a formal science investigating how conclusions follow from premises in a topic-neutral way. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Formal logic contrasts with informal logic, which is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. While there is no general agreement on how formal and informal logic are to be distinguished, one prominent approach associates their difference with whether the studied arguments are expressed in formal or informal languages. Logic plays a central role in multiple fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises together with a conclusion. Premises and conclusions are usually ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fallacies
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves," in the construction of an argument which may appear stronger than it really is if the fallacy is not spotted. The term in the Western intellectual tradition was introduced in the Aristotelian '' De Sophisticis Elenchis''. Some fallacies may be committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception. Others may be committed unintentionally because of human limitations such as carelessness, cognitive or social biases and ignorance, or, potentially, as the inevitable consequence of the limitations of language and understanding of language. This includes ignorance of the right reasoning standard, but also ignorance of relevant properties of the context. For instance, the soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made. Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal." A formal fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which ren ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Reasoning
Two kinds of logical reasoning are often distinguished in addition to formal deduction: induction and abduction. Given a precondition or ''premise'', a conclusion or ''logical consequence'' and a rule or ''material conditional'' that implies the ''conclusion'' given the ''precondition'', one can explain the following. # Deductive reasoning determines whether the truth of a ''conclusion'' can be determined for that ''rule'', based solely on the truth of the premises. Example: "When it rains, things outside get wet. The grass is outside, therefore: when it rains, the grass gets wet." Mathematical logic and philosophical logic are commonly associated with this type of reasoning. # Inductive reasoning attempts to support a determination of the ''rule''. It hypothesizes a ''rule'' after numerous examples are taken to be a ''conclusion'' that follows from a ''precondition'' in terms of such a ''rule''. Example: "The grass got wet numerous times when it rained, therefore: the grass alway ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fallacy
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves," in the construction of an argument which may appear stronger than it really is if the fallacy is not spotted. The term in the Western intellectual tradition was introduced in the Aristotelian '' De Sophisticis Elenchis''. Some fallacies may be committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception. Others may be committed unintentionally because of human limitations such as carelessness, cognitive or social biases and ignorance, or, potentially, as the inevitable consequence of the limitations of language and understanding of language. This includes ignorance of the right reasoning standard, but also ignorance of relevant properties of the context. For instance, the soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made. Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal." A formal fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which ren ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgement. The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self- monitored, and self- corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism. History The earliest records of critical thinking are the teachings of Socrates recorded by Plato. These included a part in Plato's early dialogues, where Socrates engages with one or more interlocutors on the issue of ethics such as question whether it was right for Socrates to escape from prison. The philosopher considered and reflected on this question and came to the conc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argumentation
Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, argumentation theory, includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real-world settings. Argumentation includes various forms of dialogue such as deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures. It also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal, and didactic dialogue used for teaching. This discipline also studies the means by which people can express and rationally resolve or at least manage their disagreements. Argumentation is a daily occurrence, such as in public debate, science, and law. For example in law, in courts by the ju ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument
An argument is a statement or group of statements called premises intended to determine the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called conclusion. Arguments can be studied from three main perspectives: the logical, the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective. In logic, an argument is usually expressed not in natural language but in a symbolic formal language, and it can be defined as any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others through deductively valid inferences that preserve truth from the premises to the conclusion. This logical perspective on argument is relevant for scientific fields such as mathematics and computer science. Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards and criteria to evaluate arguments. Deductive arguments can be valid, and the valid ones can be sound: in a valid argument, premisses necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premises is false ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Poisoning The Well
Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of ''argumentum ad hominem'', and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work ''Apologia Pro Vita Sua'' (1864). See also: The etymology of the phrase lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the invading army's strength. Structure Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or implied) argument, and is considered by some philosophers an informal fallacy. A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form: :1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented by another. (e.g. "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Straw Man
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects. Straw man tactics in the United Kingdom may also be known as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name, where patrons throw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top. Structure Th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ignoratio Elenchi
An irrelevant conclusion, also known as ''ignoratio elenchi'' () or missing the point, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but (whose conclusion) fails to address the issue in question. It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies. The irrelevant conclusion should not be confused with formal fallacy, an argument whose conclusion does not follow from its premises; instead, it is that despite its formal consistency it is not relevant to the subject being talked about. Overview ''Ignoratio elenchi'' is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his ''Organon''. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ''ignoratio elenchi''. ● Example 1: A and B are debating as to whether criticizing indirectly has any merit in general. attempts to support their position with an argument that politics ought not to be criticized on social media because the message is not directly being heard b ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.svg "Click for more on -> Logical Reasoning")
.JPG "Click for more on -> Critical Thinking")
