Archive

Archive for the ‘Logic’ Category

Affirming The Consequent

November 25th, 2009 No comments

Taxonomy – Where am I?

Affirming The Consequent

classification : informal – Non-sequitur

Affirming the consequent argues backward from the truth of a conclusion to the truth of one of the propositions like this.

Foundations

Together with its similar Sub fallacy, Denying the Antecedent, instances of Affirming the Consequent are most likely to seem valid when we assume the converse of the argument’s conditional premise.

Note: On Sophistical Refutations – Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge

Categories: Logic

Bulverism

November 24th, 2009 No comments

Taxonomy – Where am I?

Bulverism

classification : informal – Non-sequitur

Rather than proving that an argument is wrong, a person instead assumes it is wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held that argument..

Foundations

The term “Bulverism” was coined by C. S. Lewis. Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay of the same name, later included in the anthology God in the Dock. It is very similar to Antony Flew’s “Subject/Motive Shift”.

Categories: Logic

Sub fallacy level 1

November 24th, 2009 No comments

Categories: Logic

Sub fallacy

November 20th, 2009 No comments

Categories: Logic

Fallacy

November 19th, 2009 Comments off

Categories: Logic

Category

November 19th, 2009 No comments

Categories: Logic

Figure Of Speech

November 9th, 2009 No comments

Taxonomy

Figure Of Speech

classification : one of Aristotle’s original 13 fallacies

Ambiguities that could occur when different words in Greek or Latin had different cases or genders even though case or gender endings were the same.

Note: On Sophistical Refutations – Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge

Categories: Logic

Aristotle’s 13 Fallacies

November 8th, 2009 No comments

Aristotle’s 13 Fallacies

Linguistic fallacies

(in dictione)

aristotle_full

De Sophisticis Elenchis:

One of his six works on logic contained within the Organon, (Instrument) the name given by Aristotle’s followers – the Peripatetics.

The works are:
Categories,
On Interpretation,
Prior Analytics,
Posterior Analytics,
Topics and

Sophistical Refutations.

Accent (Ambiguity or homonymy)
Amphiboly (or ambiguity)
Equivocation
Composition (Combination) and Division

(two sides of the same coin)

Figure of Speech

Non-linguistic fallacies

(extra dictionem)

Accident
Affirming the Consequent
In a Certain Respect and Simply
Ignorance of Refutation
Begging the Question
False Cause

source: Sophistical Refutations (Sophistici Elenchi)

On Sophistical Refutations – Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge

  1. Ambiguity or homonymy)
Categories: Logic

Regression Fallacy

November 8th, 2009 No comments

Taxonomy – Where am I?

Regression Fallacy

classification : informal – non causa pro causa

With this, therefore because of this.
It ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations.

Foundations

The Regression Fallacy is the result of a statistical phenomenon known as “regression to the mean”. The “mean” refers to the arithmetical average of some variable in a population, that is, the “mean” is what we usually mean by “average”. “Regression” refers to the value of the variable tending to move closer to the mean, away from extreme values. So, “regression to the mean” refers to the tendency of a variable characteristic in a population to move away from the extreme values towards the average value.

Examples

The frequency of accidents on a road fell after a speed camera was installed. Therefore, the speed camera has improved road safety.

Categories: Logic

Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

November 8th, 2009 No comments

Taxonomy – Where am I?

Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

classification : informal – non causa pro causa

With this, therefore because of this.
Committed when one jumps to a conclusion about causation based on a correlation between two events, or types of event, which occur simultaneously.

Foundations

The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It’s a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.

Examples

Changing lanes in my car causes the rest of the traffic to speed up or slow down.

Other Names

Correlation does not imply causation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (coincidental correlation)
Spurious relationship
Causality
Chain reaction
Domino effect

Categories: Logic