|
Denying The Correlative
The informal fallacy of denying the correlative is an attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none. It is the opposite of the false dilemma, which is denying other alternatives. Its logical form is Either X or not X, therefore Y. For example: :Judge: So did you kill your landlord or not? :Kirk: I fought with him. In the context of a multiple choice question, the best answer must be chosen from the available alternatives. However, in determining whether this fallacy is committed, a close look at the context is required. The essence of denying the correlative is introducing an alternative into a context that logically admits none, but this itself could be taken as an indication that the context is irrational. Even if there are no implicit alternatives, (such as the right to remain silent The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a l ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Informal Fallacy
Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the ''form'' of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their ''content'' and ''context''. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually ''appear'' to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions, or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit. Traditionally, a great number of informal fallacies have been identified, including the fallacy of equivocation, the fallacy of amphiboly, the fallacies of composition and division, the false dilemma, the fallacy of begging the question, the ad hominem fallacy and the appeal to ignorance. There is no general agreement as to how the various fallacies are to be grouped into categories. One approach sometimes found in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
False Dilemma
A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many. For example, a false dilemma is committed when it is claimed that "Stacey spoke out against capitalism; therefore, she must be a communist". One of the options excluded is that Stacey may be neither communist nor capitalist. False dilemmas often have the form of treating two contraries, which may both be false, as contradictories, of which one is necessarily true. Various inferential schemes are associated with false dilemmas, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Right To Remain Silent
The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems. The right covers a number of issues centered on the right of the accused or the defendant to refuse to comment or provide an answer when questioned, either prior to or during legal proceedings in a court of law. This can be the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to remain silent when questioned. The right may include the provision that adverse inferences cannot be made by the judge or jury regarding the refusal by a defendant to answer questions before or during a trial, hearing or any other legal proceeding. This right constitutes only a small part of the defendant's rights as a whole. The origin of the right to silence is attributed to Sir Edward Coke's challenge to the ecclesiastical courts and their ''ex ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Correlative Based Fallacies
In philosophy, correlative-based fallacies are informal fallacies based on correlative conjunctions. Correlative conjunctions A correlative conjunction is a relationship between two statements where one must be false and the other true. In formal logic this is known as the exclusive or relationship; traditionally, terms between which this relationship exists have been called ''contradictories''. Examples In the following example, statement ''b'' explicitly negates statement ''a'': Statements can also be mutually exclusive, without explicitly negating each other as in the following example: Fallacies Fallacies based on correlatives include: ;False dilemma or ''false correlative''. :Here something which is not a correlative is treated as a correlative, excluding some other possibility. ;Denying the correlative :where an attempt is made to introduce another option into a true correlative. ;Suppressed correlative The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument tha ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Existential Import
A syllogism ( grc-gre, συλλογισμός, ''syllogismos'', 'conclusion, inference') is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true. In its earliest form (defined by Aristotle in his 350 BCE book '' Prior Analytics''), a syllogism arises when two true premises (propositions or statements) validly imply a conclusion, or the main point that the argument aims to get across. For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Socrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Socrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.In antiquity, two rival syllogistic theories existed: Aristotelian syllogism and Stoic syllogism. From the Middle Ages onwards, ''categorical syllogism'' and ''syllogism'' were usually used interchangeably. This ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Law Of Non-contradiction
In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "''p is the case''" and "''p is not the case''" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p). The law is not to be confused with the law of excluded middle which states that at least one, "p is the case" or "p is not the case" holds. One reason to have this law is the principle of explosion, which states that anything follows from a contradiction. The law is employed in a ''reductio ad absurdum'' proof. To express the fact that the law is tenseless and to avoid equivocation, sometimes the law is amended to say "contradictory propositions cannot both be true 'at the same time and in the same sense'". It is one of the so called three laws of thought, along with i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
