|
Sweeping Generalization
''Secundum quid'' (also called ''secundum quid et simpliciter'', meaning "[what is true] in a certain respect and [what is true] absolutely") is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer fails to recognize the difference between rules of thumb (''soft'' generalizations, heuristics that hold true ''as a general rule'' but leave room for exceptions) and categorical propositions, rules that hold true universally. Since it ignores the limits, or wikt:qualification, qualifications, of rules of thumb, this fallacy is also named ignoring qualifications. The expression misuse of a principle can be used as well. Example The arguer cites only the cases that support his point, conveniently omitting Bach, Beethoven, Brahms etc. Compare with: In popular culture The following quatrain can be attributed to C. H. Talbot: I talked in terms whose sense was hid, ''Dividendo, componendo et secundum quid''; Now ''secundum quid'' is a wise remark And it earned my reputation as a lea ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Rules Of Thumb
In English, the phrase ''rule of thumb'' refers to an approximate method for doing something, based on practical experience rather than theory. This usage of the phrase can be traced back to the 17th century and has been associated with various trades where quantities were measured by comparison to the width or length of a thumb. A modern folk etymology holds that the phrase is derived from the maximum width of a stick allowed for wife-beating under English common law, but no such law ever existed. This belief may have originated in a rumored statement by 18th-century judge Sir Francis Buller that a man may beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb. The rumor produced numerous jokes and satirical cartoons at Buller's expense, but there is no record that he made such a statement. English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote in his '' Commentaries on the Laws of England'' of an "old law" that once allowed "moderate" beatings by husbands, but he did not mention thumbs or ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Heuristics
A heuristic (; ), or heuristic technique, is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational, but is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal or approximation. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples that employ heuristics include using trial and error, a rule of thumb or an ansatz, educated guess. Heuristics are the strategies derived from previous experiences with similar problems. These strategies depend on using readily accessible, though loosely applicable, information to control problem solving in human beings, machines and abstract issues. When an individual applies a heuristic in practice, it generally performs as expected. However it can alternati ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Categorical Proposition
In logic, a categorical proposition, or categorical statement, is a proposition that asserts or denies that all or some of the members of one category (the ''subject term'') are included in another (the ''predicate term''). The study of arguments using categorical statements (i.e., syllogisms) forms an important branch of deductive reasoning that began with the Ancient Greeks. The Ancient Greeks such as Aristotle identified four primary distinct types of categorical proposition and gave them standard forms (now often called ''A'', ''E'', ''I'', and ''O''). If, abstractly, the subject category is named ''S'' and the predicate category is named ''P'', the four standard forms are: *All ''S'' are ''P''. (''A'' form, \forall _\rightarrow P_xequiv \forall neg S_\lor P_x/math>) *No ''S'' are ''P''. (''E'' form, \forall _\rightarrow \neg P_xequiv \forall neg S_\lor \neg P_x/math>) *Some ''S'' are ''P''. (''I'' form, \exists _\land P_x/math>) *Some ''S'' are not ''P''. (''O'' form, \ex ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Qualification
Qualification is either the process of qualifying for an achievement, or a credential attesting to that achievement, and may refer to: * Professional qualification, attributes developed by obtaining academic degrees or through professional experience * Qualification badge, a decoration of People's Liberation Army Type 07 indicating military rank or length of service * Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS), a competitive contract procurement process established by the United States Congress * Qualifications for professional social work, professional degrees in social work in various nations * Qualification problem, the impossibility of listing all the preconditions required for an action to have its intended effect * Qualification principle, in programming language theory, the statement that syntactic classes may admit local definitions * Qualification types in the United Kingdom, different levels of academic, vocational or skills-related education achievements * International Quali ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Accident (fallacy)
The fallacy of accident (also called destroying the exception or ''a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid'') is an informal fallacy and a deductively valid but unsound argument occurring in a statistical syllogism (an argument based on a generalization) when an exception to a rule of thumb is ignored. It is one of the thirteen fallacies originally identified by Aristotle in ''Sophistical Refutations''. The fallacy occurs when one attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation. For example: This fallacy may occur when limited generalizations ("some; sometimes and somewhere") are mixed with A-type categorical statements ("all; always and everywhere"), often when no quantifiers like "some" or "many" or qualifiers such as "rarely" are used to mark off what is or may be excepted in the generalization. Related inductive fallacies include overwhelming exceptions and hasty generalizations. See faulty generalization. The opposing kind of ''dicto simplicite ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Converse Accident
The fallacy of converse accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, or ''a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter'') is an informal fallacy that can occur in a statistical syllogism (an argument based on a generalization) when a rule that applies only to an exceptional case is wrongly applied to all cases in general. Overview For example: :If we allow people with glaucoma to use medical marijuana, then everyone should be allowed to use marijuana. * People with glaucoma use marijuana. * People with glaucoma should be allowed to choose what substances they use. * Therefore, all people who use marijuana should be allowed to choose what substances they use. The inductive version of this fallacy is called hasty generalization. See faulty generalization. This fallacy is similar to the slippery slope, where the opposition claims that if a restricted action under debate is allowed, such as allowing people with glaucoma to use medical marijuana, then the ac ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Defeasible Reasoning
In philosophical logic, defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is rationally compelling, though not deductively valid. It usually occurs when a rule is given, but there may be specific exceptions to the rule, or subclasses that are subject to a different rule. Defeasibility is found in literatures that are concerned with argument and the process of argument, or heuristic reasoning. Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning, where the reasoning does not produce a full, complete, or final demonstration of a claim, i.e., where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged. In other words, defeasible reasoning produces a contingent statement or claim. Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises. Defeasible reasoning finds its fullest expression in jurisprudence, ethics and moral philosophy, epistemology, pragmatics and conversational con ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy
The ''Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (''IEP'') is a scholarly online encyclopedia, dealing with philosophy, philosophical topics, and philosophers. The IEP combines open access publication with peer reviewed publication of original papers. Contribution is generally by invitation, and contributors are recognized and leading international specialists within their field. History The ''IEP'' was founded by philosopher James Fieser in 1995, operating through a non-profit organization with the aim of providing accessible and scholarly information on philosophy.Kooy, B. 2015. 'Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy', in ''Reference Review,'' Vol.29, No.4, p.12; see also The current general editors are philosophers James Fieser and Bradley Dowden, with the staff also including numerous area editors as well as volunteers. The entire website was redesigned in the summer of 2009, moving from static HTML pages to the open-source publishing platform ''WordPress''. Organization The i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Informal Fallacies
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 the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Latin Logical Phrases
Latin (, or , ) is a classical language belonging to the Italic branch of the Indo-European languages. Latin was originally a dialect spoken in the lower Tiber area (then known as Latium) around present-day Rome, but through the power of the Roman Republic it became the dominant language in the Italian region and subsequently throughout the Roman Empire. Even after the fall of Western Rome, Latin remained the common language of international communication, science, scholarship and academia in Europe until well into the 18th century, when other regional vernaculars (including its own descendants, the Romance languages) supplanted it in common academic and political usage, and it eventually became a dead language in the modern linguistic definition. Latin is a highly inflected language, with three distinct genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), six or seven noun cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative, and vocative), five declensions, four verb conjuga ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
