Association fallacyThe association fallacy is a formal fallacy in which it is assumed that if a concept, whether physical or abstract, has certain properties, any other concept belonging to the same group as the first must also share these properties. When it is an attempt to win favor by exploiting the audience's preexisting spite or disdain for something else, it is called guilt by association or an appeal to spite (Latin: argumentum ad odium).
Informal fallacyInformal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not necessarily due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but is due to its content and context. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually appear to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them.
Formal fallacyIn logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning with a flaw in its logical structure (the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion). A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy. A formal fallacy must have an invalid logical form and thus be unsound. An informal fallacy, however, may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false.
Deductive reasoningForm of reasoningDeductive reasoning is the process of drawing valid inferences. An inference is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, meaning that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. For example, the inference from the premises "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man" to the conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is deductively valid. An argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true.
Ad hominemAd hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem ('argument directed at the person'), is a rhetorical tactic of attacking the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background.FallacyA fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument that may appear to be well-reasoned if unnoticed. The term was introduced in the Western intellectual tradition by the AristotelianDe Sophisticis Elenchis.Moralistic fallacyThe moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that an aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then Z would happen! Thus, X is false", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing. What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring. The moralistic fallacy is sometimes presented as the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.Fact–value distinctionThe fact–value distinction is a fundamental epistemological distinction between: Statements of fact (positive or descriptive statements), which are based upon reason and observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.Statements of value (normative or prescriptive statements), such as good and bad, beauty and ugliness, which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and which are studied via axiology.This barrier between fact and value, as construed in epistemology, implies it is impossible to derive ethical claims from factual arguments or to defend the former using the latter.
InferenceInferences are steps in logical reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences. Inference is traditionally divided into deduction and induction, a distinction that dates at least to Aristotle (300s BC). A third type of inference, abduction, has been proposed, notably by Charles Sanders Peirce. Deduction is inference derivinglogical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic.
ArgumentAn argument is one or more premises—sentences, statements, or propositions—directed towards arriving at a logical conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's thinking and understanding via justification, explanation, or persuasion. As a series of logical steps, arguments are intended to determine or show the degree of truth or acceptability of a logical conclusion.Validity (logic)In logic, specifically in deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion.
Cognitive biasA cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from the norm or rationality in judgment. Individuals create their own "subjective reality" from their perception of the input. An individual's construction of reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behavior in the world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, and irrationality.*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.