History Main / LogicalFallacies

17th Oct '16 1:02:25 AM LadyJaneGrey
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* PoesLaw: Satire mistaken for fact, ''used'' by someone who states it as fact.
16th Oct '16 8:13:27 AM LadyJaneGrey
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* ArkhamsRazor: The most unusual solution is bound to be true.
24th Sep '16 10:45:51 AM Josef5678
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* {{Presentism}}: [[ValuesDissonance Present-day ideas and perspectives being anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past.]]

to:

* {{Presentism}}: [[ValuesDissonance Present-day ideas and perspectives being anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past.]]
5th Sep '16 10:57:33 AM Premonition45
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* MovingTheGoalposts: Continually changing the requirements for a reward so that it is never obtained.

to:

* MovingTheGoalposts: Continually changing the requirements for a reward goal so that it is never obtained.achieved.
31st Aug '16 11:33:24 PM BroTim11
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** AppealToHypocrisy: Claiming an argument is invalid because the opponent fails to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).



* AppealToHypocrisy: Claiming an argument is invalid because the opponent fails to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
26th Aug '16 11:06:59 AM MasterofGalaxies4628
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Where deductive logic is valid, the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. "If it rains, then the sidewalk will be wet" is valid, so if you know that it rained, you know that the sidewalk will be wet. If you simply reverse the terms and say "if the sidewalk is wet, then it rained" this would not be valid (likewise, negating the terms, yielding "if it did not rain, then the sidewalk is not wet", is also invalid. To correct this, you need to construct a "contra-positive," where you reverse the terms as well as negating them to get "if the sidewalk is not wet, then it did not rain").

to:

Where deductive logic is valid, the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. "If it rains, then the sidewalk will be wet" is valid, so if you know that it rained, you know that the sidewalk will be wet. If you simply reverse the terms and say "if the sidewalk is wet, then it rained" this would not be valid (likewise, valid; likewise, negating the terms, yielding "if it did not rain, then the sidewalk is not wet", is also invalid. To correct this, you need to construct a "contra-positive," where you [[BreadEggsBreadedEggs reverse the terms as well as negating them them]] to get "if the sidewalk is not wet, then it did not rain").
rain".
22nd Aug '16 2:23:55 PM Premonition45
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* BrokenWindowFallacy: Thinking the costs for recovering from disaster are equal to the benefits.
21st Aug '16 10:45:46 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ShiftingTheBurdenOfProof: Arguing that something must be true (or false) because it has not been proven false (or true).

to:

* ShiftingTheBurdenOfProof: Arguing that something must be true (or false) because the burden of proof lies with the side it has does not been normally lie with: "guilty until proven false (or true).innocent."
16th Aug '16 12:48:48 PM Premonition45
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ArgumentumAdLapidem: Dismissing an opposing argument as absurd without any sort of support.

to:

* ArgumentumAdLapidem: Dismissing an opposing argument as absurd without any sort of support.explaining ''why''.
12th Aug '16 8:40:25 PM Premonition45
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* AppealToHypocrisy: Claiming an argument is invalid because the opponent fails to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
This list shows the last 10 events of 125. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.LogicalFallacies