History Main / LogicalFallacies

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).
29th Jul '16 8:14:51 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


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

to:

* {{Presentism}}: [[ValuesDissonance Projecting present-day Present-day ideas and perspectives are being anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past.]]
29th Jul '16 8:12:13 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


However, one must keep in mind that--depending on the surrounding circumstances--a deductively fallacious argument may still, none the less, [[RightForTheWrongReasons be a reasonable and (inductively) logical argument that has decent prospects of being true despite the deductive logic being invalid]]. A classic example is if someone were to examine a million swans and note that all of them were white. It would be a (deductively) logical fallacy to conclude that "all swans are white". You could not make that conclusion unless you know that you had examined all swans in the universe. That doesn't make it illogical, however. If no one had ever seen a black swan, it might be rather sensible. Plus, this whole type of analysis is complicated when you talk about statistical trends. For these kinds of special cases, see FallacyFallacy.

to:

However, one must keep in mind that--depending on the surrounding circumstances--a deductively fallacious argument may still, none the less, nonetheless, [[RightForTheWrongReasons be a reasonable and (inductively) logical argument that has decent prospects of being true despite the deductive logic being invalid]]. A classic example is if someone were to examine a million swans and note that all of them were white. It would be a (deductively) logical fallacy to conclude that "all swans are white". You could not make that conclusion unless you know that you had examined all swans in the universe. That doesn't make it illogical, however. If no one had ever seen a black swan, it might be rather sensible. Plus, this whole type of analysis is complicated when you talk about statistical trends. For these kinds of special cases, see FallacyFallacy.
This list shows the last 10 events of 123. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.LogicalFallacies