4,618
edits
Logical fallacy: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Logical fallacies''', or '''logical errors,''' are erroneous, illogical, or misleading arguments or claims | '''Logical fallacies''', or '''logical errors,''' are erroneous, illogical, or misleading arguments or claims; also called " informal logic fallacies" | ||
* erroneous = contains an error of fact or | * erroneous = contains an error of fact or | ||
* illogical = draws a conclusion not supported by premises | * illogical = draws a conclusion not supported by premises | ||
* misleading = deliberately constructed to deceive or mislead | * misleading = deliberately constructed to deceive or mislead | ||
See [[Social_Studies_skills#Logical_and_observational_fallacies_&_paradoxes|Social Studies skills: Logical and observational fallacies & paradoxes]] for list of logical and observational fallacies regarding the Social Sciences. | See [[Social_Studies_skills#Logical_and_observational_fallacies_&_paradoxes|Social Studies skills: Logical and observational fallacies & paradoxes]] for list of logical and observational fallacies regarding the Social Sciences. | ||
==Logical fallacies and tricks== | ==Logical fallacies and tricks== | ||
*ad hominem | |||
*ad populum / bandwagon appeal | * also called "rhetorical fallacies" | ||
=== ad hominem === | |||
* a form of "character attack" | |||
** ''ad hominem'' appeals to prejudice and emotions of the audience rather than addressing the opponent's argument itself | |||
** similar to a "false equivalency" that may include making an argument that "impugns" (insults, denigrates) the opponent's integrity through an association with someone or something else that is otherwise unrelated to the opponent's argument | |||
*** ex.: "My opponent believes in private schools, just like all racists do" | |||
* can be a valid argument: | |||
** see: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/ Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem - Scientific American] | |||
=== ad populum / bandwagon appeal === | |||
*argument by exception | *argument by exception | ||
**a fallacy of the particular, in which an argument is attacked based upon a single or rare instance of exception | **a fallacy of the particular, in which an argument is attacked based upon a single or rare instance of exception | ||
| Line 14: | Line 25: | ||
***exception: "But it rained the other day" | ***exception: "But it rained the other day" | ||
***fallacy: just because it rained once doesn't mean the drought is over | ***fallacy: just because it rained once doesn't mean the drought is over | ||
*begging the question | |||
=== association fallacy === | |||
*equates having similar ideas or circumstances to a group as being the same as that group | |||
**ex. "You think smoking is bad. Hitler thought smoking was bad." | |||
*= a type of ''ad hominem'' argument | |||
=== begging the question === | |||
*broken leg fallacy | *broken leg fallacy | ||
**presents a solution for a problem caused by that or a related solution | **presents a solution for a problem caused by that or a related solution | ||