|
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 Fallacy of composition, fallacies of composition and Fallacy of division, 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 cate ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument
An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion. Arguments are intended to determine or show the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called a conclusion. The process of crafting or delivering arguments, argumentation, 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 form ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Rule Of Inference
Rules of inference are ways of deriving conclusions from premises. They are integral parts of formal logic, serving as norms of the Logical form, logical structure of Validity (logic), valid arguments. If an argument with true premises follows a rule of inference then the conclusion cannot be false. ''Modus ponens'', an influential rule of inference, connects two premises of the form "if P then Q" and "P" to the conclusion "Q", as in the argument "If it rains, then the ground is wet. It rains. Therefore, the ground is wet." There are many other rules of inference for different patterns of valid arguments, such as ''modus tollens'', disjunctive syllogism, constructive dilemma, and existential generalization. Rules of inference include rules of implication, which operate only in one direction from premises to conclusions, and rules of replacement, which state that two expressions are equivalent and can be freely swapped. Rules of inference contrast with formal fallaciesinvalid argu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Subjective Probabilities
Bayesian probability ( or ) is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief. The Bayesian interpretation of probability can be seen as an extension of propositional logic that enables reasoning with hypotheses; that is, with propositions whose truth or falsity is unknown. In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under frequentist inference, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability. Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies a prior probability. This, in turn, is then updated to a posterior probability in the light of new, relevant data (evidence). The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedur ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Definitions Of Knowledge
Definitions of knowledge aim to identify the essential features of knowledge. Closely related terms are conception of knowledge, theory of knowledge, and analysis of knowledge. Some general features of knowledge are widely accepted among philosophers, for example, that it involves cognitive success and epistemic contact with reality. Despite extensive study, disagreements about the nature of knowledge persist, in part because researchers use diverging methodologies, seek definitions for distinct purposes, and have differing intuitions about the standards of knowledge. An often-discussed definition asserts that knowledge is justified true belief. Justification means that the belief fulfills certain norms like being based on good reasons or being the product of a reliable cognitive process. This approach seeks to distinguish knowledge from mere true beliefs that arise from superstition, lucky guesses, or flawed reasoning. Critics of the justified-true-belief view, like Edmund Getti ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tu Quoque
is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, so that the opponent appears hypocritical. This specious reasoning is a special type of attack. The cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play as the earliest known use of the term in the English language. Form and explanation The ( fallacious) argument follows the template (i.e. pattern): # Person A claims that a statement is true. # Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim . # Therefore, is false. For example: # Person A: "Smoking is associated with chronic health disorders. You shouldn't smoke." # Person B: "But you smoke yourself. So much for your argument!" Person A makes a statement, and Person B reasons that because Person A is being hypocritical, their statement is false. Similar concepts A similar concept in politics is that of whatabou ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Game-theoretic
Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions. It has applications in many fields of social science, and is used extensively in economics, logic, systems science and computer science. Initially, game theory addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which a participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by the losses and gains of the other participant. In the 1950s, it was extended to the study of non zero-sum games, and was eventually applied to a wide range of behavioral relations. It is now an umbrella term for the science of rational decision making in humans, animals, and computers. Modern game theory began with the idea of mixed-strategy equilibria in two-person zero-sum games and its proof by John von Neumann. Von Neumann's original proof used the Brouwer fixed-point theorem on continuous mappings into compact convex sets, which became a standard method in game theory and mathematical economics. His paper was followed by ''Theory of Games and ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Douglas N
Douglas may refer to: People * Douglas (given name) * Douglas (surname) Animals * Douglas (parrot), macaw that starred as the parrot ''Rosalinda'' in Pippi Longstocking * Douglas the camel, a camel in the Confederate Army in the American Civil War Businesses * Douglas Aircraft Company * Douglas (cosmetics), German cosmetics retail chain in Europe * Douglas Holding, former German company * Douglas (motorcycles), British motorcycle manufacturer Peerage and Baronetage * Duke of Douglas * Earl of Douglas, or any holder of the title * Marquess of Douglas, or any holder of the title * Douglas baronets Peoples * Clan Douglas, a Scottish kindred * Dougla people, West Indians of both African and East Indian heritage Places Australia * Douglas, Queensland, a suburb of Townsville * Douglas, Queensland (Toowoomba Region), a locality * Port Douglas, North Queensland, Australia * Shire of Douglas, in northern Queensland Canada * Douglas, New Brunswick * Douglas Parish, New B ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Informal Logic
Informal logic encompasses the principles of logic and logical thought outside of a formal setting (characterized by the usage of particular statements). However, the precise definition of "informal logic" is a matter of some dispute. Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair define informal logic as "a branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards, criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, evaluation, criticism and construction of argumentation."Johnson, Ralph H., and Blair, J. Anthony (1987), "The Current State of Informal Logic", ''Informal Logic'', 9(2–3), 147–151. Johnson & Blair added "... in everyday discourse" but in (2000), modified their definition, and broadened the focus now to include the sorts of argument that occurs not just in everyday discourse but also disciplined inquiry—what Weinstein (1990) calls "stylized discourse." This definition reflects what had been implicit in their practice and what others were doing in their informal ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
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. Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning.Herrick (2000) 248. Some examples are: *“Wool sweaters are better than nylon jackets as fall attire because wool sweaters have higher wool content". ** The claim in this quote is that wool sweaters are better than nylon jackets as fall attire. However, the justification of this claim begs the question because it ''presupposes'' that wool sweaters are better than nylon jackets: in other words, wool sweaters are better than nylon jackets because wool is better than ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Denying The Antecedent
Denying the antecedent (also known as inverse error or fallacy of the inverse) is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from an original statement. Phrased another way, denying the antecedent occurs in the context of an indicative conditional statement and assumes that the negation of the antecedent implies the negation of the consequent. It is a type of mixed hypothetical syllogism that takes on the following form: :If ''P'', then ''Q''. :Not ''P''. :Therefore, not ''Q''. which may also be phrased as :P \rightarrow Q (P implies Q) :\therefore \neg P \rightarrow \neg Q (therefore, not-P implies not-Q) Arguments of this form are invalid. Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true. The name ''denying the antecedent'' derives from the premise "not ''P''", which denies the "if" clause (antecedent) of the conditional premise. The only situation where one may deny the an ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Affirming The Consequent
In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the antecedent is true. It takes on the following form: :: If ''P'', then ''Q''. :: ''Q''. :: Therefore, ''P''. which may also be phrased as : P \rightarrow Q (P implies Q) : \therefore Q \rightarrow P (therefore, Q implies P) For example, it may be true that a broken lamp would cause a room to become dark. It is not true, however, that a dark room implies the presence of a broken lamp. There may be no lamp (or any light source). The lamp may also be off. In other words, the consequent (a dark room) can have other antecedents (no lamp, off-lamp), and so can still be true even if the stated antecedent is not. Converse errors are comm ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Formal Logic
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. Informal logic examines arguments expressed in natural language whereas formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a specific logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises that leads to a conclusion. An example is the argument from the premises "it's Sunday" and "if it's Sunday then I don't have to work" leading to the conclusion "I don't have to wor ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
