In Philosophical logic, an informal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is false due to the falsity of one or more of its premises. It is in constrast to a logical or formal fallacy, which is false due to a fundamental flaw in its argument structure. Philosophical logic is the study of the more specifically philosophical aspects of logic. ... In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises. ... It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with fallacy. ...
Types of informal fallacies
Begging the question is one of the most common types of informal fallacies, where there is a co-premise which would be the subject of an inference objection, which in effect is the question that has been "begged". In logic, begging the question, also known as circular reasoning and by the Latin name petitio principii, is an informal fallacy found in many attempts at logical arguments. ... A co-premise is a premise in reasoning and informal logic which is not the main supporting reason for a contention or a lemma, but is logically necessary to ensure the validity of an argument. ... In informal logic, an inference objection is an objection to an argument based not on any of its stated premises, but rather on the relationship between premise and contention. ...
Categories: Philosophical logic | Philosophy stubs It has been suggested that Logical fallacy be merged into this article or section. ... It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with fallacy. ...
A fallacy is a component of an argument that is demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument invalid (except in the case of begging the question) in whole.
Because the validity of a deductive argument depends on its form, a formal fallacy (or logical fallacy) is a deductive argument that has an invalid form, whereas an informalfallacy is any other invalid mode of reasoning whose flaw is not in the form of the argument.
Fallacy of Accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) meaning to argue erroneously from a general rule to a particular case, without proper regard to particular conditions that vitiate the application of the general rule; e.g.
Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Want to know more? Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:
Press Releases |
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms, 1022, m