|
Relativist Fallacy
The relativist fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is claiming that something is true for one person but not true for someone else, when in fact that thing is an objective fact. The fallacy rests on the law of noncontradiction. The fallacy applies only to objective facts, or what are alleged to be objective facts, rather than to facts about personal tastes or subjective experiences, and only to facts regarded in the same sense and at the same time. Interpretations There are at least two ways to interpret "the relativist fallacy": either as identical to relativism (generally), or as the ad hoc adoption of a relativist stance purely to defend a controversial position. On the one hand, discussions of the relativist fallacy that portray it as ''identical to'' relativism (e.g., linguistic relativism or cultural relativism) are themselves committing a commonly identified fallacy of informal logic—namely, begging the question against an earnest, intelligent, logically c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Law Of Noncontradiction
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. Logical form, Formally this is expressed as the tautology (logic), 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 Law_of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Relativism
Relativism is a family of philosophical views which deny claims to objectivity within a particular domain and assert that valuations in that domain are relative to the perspective of an observer or the context in which they are assessed. There are many different forms of relativism, with a great deal of variation in scope and differing degrees of controversy among them. '' Moral relativism'' encompasses the differences in moral judgments among people and cultures. '' Epistemic relativism'' holds that there are no absolute principles regarding normative belief, justification, or rationality, and that there are only relative ones. '' Alethic relativism'' (also factual relativism) is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture ( cultural relativism). Some forms of relativism also bear a resemblance to philosophical skepticism. ''Descriptive relativism'' seeks to describ ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ad Hoc
Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning literally 'to this'. In English, it typically signifies a solution for a specific purpose, problem, or task rather than a generalized solution adaptable to collateral instances. (Compare with ''a priori''.) Common examples are ad hoc committees and commissions created at the national or international level for a specific task. In other fields, the term could refer to, for example, a military unit created under special circumstances (see '' task force''), a handcrafted network protocol (e.g., ad hoc network), a temporary banding together of geographically-linked franchise locations (of a given national brand) to issue advertising coupons, or a purpose-specific equation. Ad hoc can also be an adjective describing the temporary, provisional, or improvised methods to deal with a particular problem, the tendency of which has given rise to the noun ''adhocism''. Styling Style guides disagree on whether Latin phrases like ad hoc should be italicized. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis
The hypothesis of linguistic relativity, also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis , the Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, is a principle suggesting that the structure of a language affects its speakers' worldview or cognition, and thus people's perceptions are relative to their spoken language. Linguistic relativity has been understood in many different, often contradictory ways throughout its history. The idea is often stated in two forms: the ''strong hypothesis'', now referred to as linguistic determinism, was held by some of the early linguists before World War II, (a debate between university professors) while the ''weak hypothesis'' is mostly held by modern linguists. * The ''strong'' version, or ''linguistic determinism'', says that language ''determines'' thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. This version is generally agreed to be false by modern linguists. * The ''weak'' version says that linguistic categories and usage only ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture. Proponents of cultural relativism also tend to argue that the norms and values of one culture should not be evaluated using the norms and values of another. It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: "civilization is not something absolute, but...is relative, and... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes". However, Boas did not coin the term. The first use of the term recorded in the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' was by philosopher and social theorist Alain Locke in 1924 to describe Robert Lowie's "extreme cultural relativism", found in the latter's 1917 book ''Culture and Ethnology''. The term became common among anthropologists after Boas' death in 1942, to express ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Fallacy/Begging The Question
In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: ') is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. For example: * "Green is the best color because it is the greenest of all colors" This statement claims that the color green is the best because it is the greenest – which it presupposes is the best. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent.Herrick (2000) 248. History The original phrase used by Aristotle from which ''begging the question'' descends is: τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς (or sometimes ἐν ἀρχῇ) αἰτεῖν, "asking for the initial thing". Aristotle's intended meaning is closely tied to the type of dialectical argument he discusses in his '' Topics'', book VIII: a formalized ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Circular Reasoning
Circular may refer to: * The shape of a circle * ''Circular'' (album), a 2006 album by Spanish singer Vega * Circular letter (other) ** Flyer (pamphlet), a form of advertisement * Circular reasoning, a type of logical fallacy * Circular reference * Government circular A government circular is a written statement of government policy. It will often provide information, guidance, rules, and/or background information on legislative or procedural matters. See also *List of circulars {{short description, None This ..., a written statement of government policy See also * Circular DNA (other) * Circular Line (other) * Circularity (other) {{disambiguation ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument From Fallacy
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its ''conclusion'' must be false. It is also called argument to logic (''argumentum ad logicam''), the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy. Form It has the general argument form: :If P, then Q. :P is a fallacious argument. :Therefore, Q is false. Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false. That the argument is fallacious only means that the argument cannot succeed in proving its consequent.John Woods''The death of argument: fallacies in agent based reasoning'' Springer 2004, pp. XXIII–XXV But showing how one argument in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Truth
Logical truth is one of the most fundamental concepts in logic. Broadly speaking, a logical truth is a statement which is true regardless of the truth or falsity of its constituent propositions. In other words, a logical truth is a statement which is not only true, but one which is true under all interpretations of its logical components (other than its logical constants). Thus, logical truths such as "if p, then p" can be considered tautologies. Logical truths are thought to be the simplest case of statements which are analytically true (or in other words, true by definition). All of philosophical logic can be thought of as providing accounts of the nature of logical truth, as well as logical consequence. Logical truths are generally considered to be ''necessarily true''. This is to say that they are such that no situation could arise in which they could fail to be true. The view that logical statements are necessarily true is sometimes treated as equivalent to saying that log ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
I'm Entitled To My Opinion
I'm entitled to my opinion (or I have a right to my opinion) is an informal fallacy in which someone dismisses arguments against their position by claiming that they have a right to hold their own particular viewpoint. The statement exemplifies a red herring or thought-terminating cliché. The fallacy is sometimes presented as "let's agree to disagree". Whether one has a particular entitlement or right is irrelevant to whether one's assertion is true or false. Where an objection to a belief is made, the assertion of the right to an opinion side-steps the usual steps of discourse of either asserting a justification of that belief, or an argument against the validity of the objection. Such an assertion, however, can also be an assertion of one's own freedom from, or a refusal to participate in, the rules of argumentation and logic Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inference ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Special Pleading
Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard. In the classic distinction among material fallacies, cognitive fallacies, and formal fallacies, special pleading most likely falls within the category of a cognitive fallacy, because it would seem to relate to "lip service", rationalization, and diversion (abandonment of discussion). Special pleading also often resembles the "appeal to" logical fallacies. In medieval philosophy, it was not presumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts a presumption of existential import. Examples A difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of: * unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly though ... [...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] |
