Publicitad D▼
fallacies
fallacy (n.)
1.an incorrect conception
2.a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning
3.pretending to be another person
Publicidad ▼
Merriam Webster
FallacyFal"la*cy (făl"lȧ*s�), n.; pl. Fallacies (făl"lȧ*sĭz). [OE. fallace, fallas, deception, F. fallace, fr. L. fallacia, fr. fallax deceitful, deceptive, fr. fallere to deceive. See Fail.]
1. Deceptive or false appearance; deceitfulness; that which misleads the eye or the mind; deception.
Winning by conquest what the first man lost,
By fallacy surprised. Milton.
2. (Logic) An argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it is not; a sophism.
Syn. -- Deception; deceit; mistake. -- Fallacy, Sophistry. A fallacy is an argument which professes to be decisive, but in reality is not; sophistry is also false reasoning, but of so specious and subtle a kind as to render it difficult to expose its fallacy. Many fallacies are obvious, but the evil of sophistry lies in its consummate art. “Men are apt to suffer their minds to be misled by fallacies which gratify their passions. Many persons have obscured and confounded the nature of things by their wretched sophistry; though an act be never so sinful, they will strip it of its guilt.” South.
Publicidad ▼
⇨ definición de Fallacies (Wikipedia)
fallacy (n.)
deceit, delusion, dummy, false belief, impersonation, imposture, inconsistency, misconception, sophism, sophistry, misconstruction (rare, scarce)
Ver también
fallacy (n.)
≠ concept, conception, construct, draft, outline
⇨ Accident (fallacy) • Ad populum fallacy • Affective fallacy • Animistic fallacy • Appeal to majority fallacy • Argument from fallacy • Association fallacy • Aurgumentum ad populum fallacy • Bare assertion fallacy • Base rate fallacy • Berkson fallacy • Berkson's fallacy • Biographical fallacy • Complexity (fallacy) • Conjunction fallacy • Continuum fallacy • Deductive fallacy • Definist fallacy • Devolution (biological fallacy) • Devolution (fallacy) • Double counting (fallacy) • Ecological fallacy • Equal transit-time fallacy • Etymological fallacy • Existential fallacy • Fallacy fallacy • Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness • Fallacy of composition • Fallacy of distribution • Fallacy of division • Fallacy of equivication • Fallacy of exclusive premises • Fallacy of four terms • Fallacy of ignoring a common cause • Fallacy of misplaced concreteness • Fallacy of necessity • Fallacy of prescience • Fallacy of quoting out of context • Fallacy of reification • Fallacy of the Consequent • Fallacy of the four terms • Fallacy of the single cause • Fallacy of the undistributed middle • Fallacy of undistributed middle • Formal fallacy • Furtive fallacy • Gambler's fallacy • Genetic fallacy • Historian fallacy • Historian's fallacy • Historical fallacy • Hoyle's fallacy • Informal fallacy • Intensional fallacy • Intentional fallacy • Inverse gambler fallacy • Inverse gambler's fallacy • Invincible ignorance fallacy • Just world fallacy • Just-world fallacy • Lewontin's Fallacy • Linguistic fallacy • Luddite fallacy • Ludic fallacy • Lump of jobs fallacy • Lump of labor fallacy • Lump of labour fallacy • Masked man fallacy • Mathematical fallacy • McNamara fallacy • Moralistic fallacy • N = 1 fallacy • Narrative fallacy • Naturalistic fallacy • Netherlands fallacy • Nirvana fallacy • Package-deal fallacy • Pathetic fallacy • Pendulum rocket fallacy • Perfect solution fallacy • Planning fallacy • Prosecutor's fallacy • Psychologist's fallacy • Rationalization (fallacy) • Regression fallacy • Reification (fallacy) • Relativist fallacy • Scotsman fallacy • Spotlight fallacy • Straw person fallacy • Syllogistic fallacy • Texas sharpshooter fallacy • Thatcherite fallacy • The Rhapsodic Fallacy • Third-cause fallacy
⇨ Correlative-based fallacies • Fads and Fallacies • Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science • Fallacies of Distributed Computing • Fallacies of definition • List of fallacies
fallacy (n.)
fallacy (n.)
fallacy, misconception, misconstruction[Hyper.]
fallacious, unsound[Dérivé]
fallacy (n.)
tale; fib; lie; falsehood; falsity; untruth[Classe]
hypocrisie (fr)[Classe]
fausse apparence (fr)[Classe]
chose qui en imite une autre (fr)[ClasseParExt.]
Wikipedia - ver también
Wikipedia
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
|
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid".[1] By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or participant (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.
Though an argument is not "logically valid", it is not necessarily the case that the conclusion is incorrect. It simply means that the conclusion cannot logically be arrived at using that argument.
Though often used unintentionally, fallacies can be used purposefully to win arguments regardless of the merits. Among such devices, discussed in more detail below, are: "ignoring the question" to divert argument to unrelated issues using a red herring, making the argument personal (argumentum ad hominem) and discrediting the opposition's character, "begging the question" (petitio principi), the use of the non-sequitur, false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc), bandwagoning (everyone says so), the "false dilemma" or "either-or fallacy" in which the situation is oversimplified, "card-stacking" or selective use of facts, and "false analogy". Another common device is the "false generalization", an abstraction of the argument that shifts discussion to platitudes where the facts of the matter are lost. There are many, many more tricks to divert attention from careful exploration of a subject.[2]
Fallacies can generally be classified as informal (premises fail to support the proposed conclusion, but the argument is structured properly) or formal (logical structure is flawed).
Contents
|
The taxonomy of material fallacies is based on that of Aristotle's body structure Organon (Sophistici elenchi). This taxonomy is as follows:
Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. They are generally classified as follows.
Magic Robe fallacy
Wherin we believe that a high-court judge is always more apt than the outsider at deciding what is true.
This can happen in conjunction with Equivocation, whereby word or phrase is used literally in one part of an argument but figuratively in another part of the argument.
Timmy argues:
Here the problem is that the word good has different meanings, which is to say that it is an ambiguous word. In the premise, Timmy says that Billy is good at some particular activity, in this case tennis. In the conclusion, Timmy states that Billy is a morally good person. These are clearly two different senses of the word "good". The premise might be true but the conclusion can still be false: Billy might be the best tennis player in the world but a rotten person morally. However, it is not legitimate to infer he is a bad person on the ground there has been a fallacious argument on the part of Timmy. Nothing concerning Billy's moral qualities is to be inferred from the premise. Appropriately, since it plays on an ambiguity, this sort of fallacy is called the fallacy of equivocation, that is, equating two incompatible terms or claims.
One posits the argument:
This argument has the appearance of an inference that applies transitivity of the two-placed relation is better than, which in this critique we grant is a valid property. The argument is an example of syntactic ambiguity. In fact, the first premise semantically does not predicate an attribute of the subject, as would for instance the assertion
In fact it is semantically equivalent to the following universal quantification:
So instantiating this fact with eating a sandwich, it logically follows that
Note that the premise A sandwich is better than nothing does not provide anything to this argument. This fact really means something such as
Thus this is a fallacy of equivocation.
In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.
However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies.
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion (see fallacy fallacy). Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g., appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.
A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst.[6] In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction, and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list above are best understood as being fallacies in this sense.
Of other classifications of fallacies in general the most famous are those of Francis Bacon and J. S. Mill. Bacon (Novum Organum, Aph. 33, 38 sqq.) divided fallacies into four Idola (Idols, i.e. False Appearances), which summarize the various kinds of mistakes to which the human intellect is prone. With these should be compared the Offendicula of Roger Bacon, contained in the Opus maius, pt. i. J. S. Mill discussed the subject in book v. of his Logic, and Jeremy Bentham's Book of Fallacies (1824) contains valuable remarks. See Rd. Whateley's Logic, bk. v.; A. de Morgan, Formal Logic (1847) ; A. Sidgwick, Fallacies (1883) and other textbooks.
|
Historical texts
Look up fallacy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
|
|
|
Contenido de sensagent
computado en 0,062s