Pooh-pooh

	Pooh-pooh A pooh-pooh (also styled as poo-poo) is a fallacy in informal logic that consists of dismissing an argument as being unworthy of serious consideration. Scholars generally characterize the fallacy as a rhetorical device in which the speaker ridicules an argument without responding to the substance of the argument. It has been characterized as a form of a straw man fallacy, where an argument is described as inherently worthless or undeserving of serious attention. Some authors have also described the fallacy as the act of "ridicul ng an argument as though it were "a myth", and some characterize it as the act of dismissing an argument "with insults without responding to its substance in any way". Other authors describe the fallacy as the act of dismissing an argument "with the wave of a hand". Some sources also suggest the fallacy is an expression that involves "sneer ng, "ridicule", or "malicious comments about the proponent of the argument".Some authors also suggest the term originat ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu]
picture info	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]
	Hasty Generalization 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, based on 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 i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu]
	List Of Fallacies A fallacy is reasoning that is logically invalid, or that undermines the logical validity of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies. Because of their variety, fallacies are challenging to classify. They can be classified by their structure ( formal fallacies) or content (informal fallacies). Informal fallacies, the larger group, may then be subdivided into categories such as improper presumption, faulty generalization, and error in assigning causation and relevance, among others. The use of fallacies is common when the speaker's goal of achieving common agreement is more important to them than utilizing sound reasoning. When fallacies are used, the premise should be recognized as not well-grounded, the conclusion as unproven (but not necessarily false), and the argument as unsound. Formal fallacies A formal fallacy is an error in the argument's form. All formal fallacies are types of . * Appeal to probability – a statement that takes something ... [...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]
	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]
picture info	Feces Feces ( or faeces), known colloquially and in slang as poo and poop, are the solid or semi-solid remains of food that was not digested in the small intestine, and has been broken down by bacteria in the large intestine. Feces contain a relatively small amount of metabolic waste products such as bacterially altered bilirubin, and dead epithelial cells from the lining of the gut. Feces are discharged through the anus or cloaca during defecation. Feces can be used as fertilizer or soil conditioner in agriculture. They can also be burned as fuel or dried and used for construction. Some medicinal uses have been found. In the case of human feces, fecal transplants or fecal bacteriotherapy are in use. Urine and feces together are called excreta. Skatole is the principal compound responsible for the unpleasant smell of feces. Characteristics The distinctive odor of feces is due to skatole, and thiols (sulfur-containing compounds), as well as amines and carboxylic acids. Skatole ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu]
	Appeal To Ridicule Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ''ad absurdo'', or the horse laugh) is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration. Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way. The person using the tactic often utilizes sarcasm in their arg ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu]