query: when did you stop beating your wife is an example of which logical fallacy

pos: Loaded question Loaded question A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt). Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are "presupposed" by the

pos: Denying the correlative Denying the correlative The informal fallacy of denying the correlative is an attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none. It is the opposite of the false dilemma, which is denying other alternatives. Its logical form is Either X or not X, therefore Y. For example: Judge: So did you kill your landlord or not? Kirk: I fought with him. In the context of a multiple choice question, the best answer must be chosen from the available alternatives. However, in determining whether this fallacy is committed, a close look at the context is required. The essence of denying the

pos: Formal fallacy obvious contradictions. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false. The standard Aristotelian "logical fallacies" are: Other logical fallacies include: 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 that is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies—valid but unsound claims or poor non-deductive

pos: You're either with us, or against us every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." The statement generally is a descriptive statement identifying the beliefs of the speaker(s), and thus state a basic assumption, not a logical conclusion. It may also be interpreted as a speech act. Sometimes but not always interpreted as a splitting or a false dilemma, which is an informal fallacy. Some see the statement as a way of persuading others to choose sides in a conflict which does not allow the position of neutrality. Only when there are no alternatives like a

pos: Suppressed correlative driven into a sturdy barrier to stop it, but to therefore say the car has brakes seems absurd. This type of fallacy is often used in conjunction with one of the fallacies of definition. It is an informal fallacy. The Scottish logician Alexander Bain discussed the fallacy of suppressed correlative, which he also called the fallacy of suppressed relative, in the 19th century. He provided many example relative pairs where the correlative terms find their meaning through contrast: rest-toil, knowledge-ignorance, silence-speech, and so on. Bain classified this type of error as a fallacy of relativity, which in turn was one

pos: Regression fallacy Regression fallacy The regression (or regressive) fallacy is an informal fallacy. It assumes that something has returned to normal because of corrective actions taken while it was abnormal. This fails to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy. Things like golf scores, the earth's temperature, and chronic back pain fluctuate naturally and usually regress towards the mean. The logical flaw is to make predictions that expect exceptional results to continue as if they were average (see Representativeness heuristic). People are most likely to take action when variance is at its peak. Then

pos: False dilemma engage in black-and-white thinking, an example of which is someone who categorizes other people as all good or all bad. False dilemma A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when a fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome. The opposite of this fallacy is false compromise. For example, what is described as the "TINA factor" in elections is often in reality a false dilemma, as there

pos: Begging the question Begging the question Begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent. The phrase "begging the question" originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin "," which actually translates to "assuming the initial point". In modern vernacular usage, "begging the question" is

pos: False dilemma False dilemma A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. A false dilemma can arise intentionally, when a fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome. The opposite of this fallacy is false compromise. For example, what is described as the "TINA factor" in elections is often in reality a false dilemma, as there are about 3 to 25 electoral candidates for most electoral seats. The false dilemma fallacy can also arise simply by

neg: Formal fallacy fallacy and a formal fallacy yet lead to a conclusion that happens to be true, for example, again affirming the consequent, now also from an untrue premise: "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm right!" "The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!" "Adolf Hitler liked dogs. He was evil. Therefore, liking dogs is evil." In the strictest sense, a logical fallacy is the incorrect application of a valid logical principle or an application of a

neg: Loaded question were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife. This fallacy should be distinguished from that of begging the question, which offers a premise whose plausibility depends on the truth of the proposition asked about, and which is often an implicit restatement of the proposition. A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I

neg: Formal fallacy home, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true. <nowiki>*</nowiki>Note that this is only a logical fallacy when the word "or" is in its inclusive form. If the two possibilities in question are mutually exclusive, this is not a logical fallacy. For example, Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form: The conclusion does not follow from the premise as it could be the case that A and B are both false. An example of denying a conjunct would be: While

neg: Kent Hehr of a veteran suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder came forward accusing him of poor treatment during a meeting in October 2016. The woman claimed he was "very condescending", gave her only two minutes of his time, when asked a question about the government denying maternity benefits he replied "Well, Ms. McCrea, that is the old question, like asking ... 'When did you stop beating your wife?, and when asked about support for her family he responded "you married him, he's your responsibility" Hehr resigned from cabinet on January 25, 2018, amid allegations of sexual harassment. Kent Hehr Kent Hehr (born

neg: Proof by example Proof by example Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalization) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement. This fallacy has the following structure, and argument form: Structure: Argument form: The following example demonstrates why this is a logical fallacy: The flaw in this argument is very evident, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem somewhat convincing, as in the following example: However, argument by example is valid when it leads from a singular premise to an "existential" conclusion (i.e. proving it is true for at least

neg: Fred Newman (philosopher) that 'When did you stop beating your wife?' quality": These kinds of attacks are ludicrous in the way that the charge of being a witch was in centuries past. A cult is a made-up thing for which (like the made-up witch) there is no falsifiability. An entire mythology can thus be created, complete with attributes and activities that cannot be proven or disproven. Indeed, that's the virtue of such made-up things. They paint a picture that holds you captive. Söderlund asked about the recent focus of the American Psychological Association on the "potential dangers of mind control". Newman replied that

neg: Appeal to flattery consequences, since the audience is subject to be flattered "as long as they comply" with the flatterer. Examples: A refusal which does not deny the compliment could be formulated thus: "I may be [positive attribute], but that doesn't mean that I will [perform action] for you." It is not necessarily a logical fallacy, however, when the compliment is sincere, and directly related to the argument. Example: Appeal to flattery Appeal to flattery is a fallacy in which a person uses flattery, excessive compliments, in an attempt to appeal to their audience's vanity to win support for their side. It is

neg: Affirming a disjunct as the disjunctive syllogism. The following argument indicates the unsoundness of affirming a disjunct: This inference is unsound because all cats, by definition, are mammals. A second example provides a first proposition that appears realistic and shows how an obviously flawed conclusion still arises under this fallacy. Affirming a disjunct The formal fallacy of affirming a disjunct also known as the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct occurs when a deductive argument takes the following logical form: Or in logical operators: Where formula_3 denotes a logical assertion. The fallacy lies in concluding that one disjunct must

neg: Formal fallacy a statement in which the final part is totally unrelated to the first part, for example: Formal fallacy In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is

neg: Proof by example one case instead of for all cases). For example: This is an informal version of the logical rule known as existential introduction (also known as "particularisation" or "existential generalization"). Formally Proof by example Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalization) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement. This fallacy has the following structure, and argument form: Structure: Argument form: The following example demonstrates why this is a logical fallacy: The flaw in this argument is very evident, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem somewhat convincing,

neg: False equivalence factors that are not relevant to the animals' suitability as pets). (the comparison is between things differing by many orders of magnitude: Deepwater Horizon spilled of oil, your neighbor might spill perhaps a pint (0.5 l).) False equivalence False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not

neg: Fallacy a statement to be true. The term "logical fallacy" is in a sense self-contradictory, because "logic" refers to valid reasoning, whereas a "fallacy" is the use of poor reasoning. Therefore, the term "formal fallacy" is preferred. In informal discourse however, "logical fallacy" is used to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason. The term "non sequitur" denotes a general formal fallacy, often meaning one which does not belong to any named subclass of formal fallacies like affirming the consequent. An ecological fallacy is committed when one draws an inference from data based on the premise that qualities observed

neg: Fallacy learners: the wise or the ignorant. A language-independent fallacy is for example: Richard Whately defines a fallacy broadly as, "any argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at hand, while in reality it is not". Whately divided fallacies into two groups: "logical" and "material". According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Material fallacies are not logical errors because the conclusion does follow from the premises. He then divided the logical group into two groups: purely logical and semi-logical. The semi-logical group included all of Aristotle's sophisms

neg: Association fallacy attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument. This form of the argument is as follows: An example of this fallacy would be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?" The logical inverse of "guilt by association" is honor by association, where one claims that someone or something must be reputable because of the people or organizations that are related to it or otherwise support it. For example: Examples:

neg: Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination string of cases establishing Supreme Court precedent to be overturned. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) characterized Senator Schumer's questioning as of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" style and remarked that if Senator Schumer can mention in-laws, he can mention a wife. Senator Cornyn said that the word "abortion" is not in the Constitution; Alito said, "The word that appears in the Constitution is liberty." He further claimed that "There is no express reference to privacy in the Constitution. But it is protected by the Fourth Amendment and in certain circumstances by the First Amendment and in certain circumstances

neg: Formal fallacy Formal fallacy In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. However, this may not affect the truth of the conclusion since

neg: Naheed Nenshi funds going to Pembina, if Pembina staff had worked on or donated to Nenshi's political campaigns. Nenshi responded by asking Levant rhetorically 'when did you stop beating your wife?' Nenshi ordered a corruption graft probe into the finances of city-owned utility company Enmax after an unknown senior employee revealed lavish spending by former Enmax CEO Gary Holden in 2010 in an email report. Holden was reported to have organized extravagant house celebrations entertained by rock stars, using Calgarian taxpayers' funds. Holden also gradually raised his salary from $700,000 to $2.7 million Holden resigned in 2011 after CBC News revealed a

neg: False equivalence False equivalence False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of

neg: Proving too much controversial at the time they are made, as in the following examples pertaining to slavery and laissez-faire economics: Showing that an opponent has proved too much is a form of "reductio ad absurdum." Proving too much Proving too much, in philosophy, is a logical fallacy which occurs when an argument reaches the desired conclusion in such a way as to make that conclusion only a special case or corollary consequence of a larger, obviously absurd conclusion. It is a fallacy because, if the reasoning were valid, it would hold for the absurd conclusion. For example, The judgement of fallacy is

neg: Proving too much Proving too much Proving too much, in philosophy, is a logical fallacy which occurs when an argument reaches the desired conclusion in such a way as to make that conclusion only a special case or corollary consequence of a larger, obviously absurd conclusion. It is a fallacy because, if the reasoning were valid, it would hold for the absurd conclusion. For example, The judgement of fallacy is therefore largely dependent on a normative judgement of the "absurd" conclusion. A charge of "proving too much" is thus generally invoked, rightly or wrongly, against normatively-opposed conclusions, and so such chargers are often

neg: Descriptive fallacy Descriptive fallacy The descriptive fallacy refers to reasoning which treats a speech act as a logical proposition, which would be mistaken when the meaning of the statement is not based on its truth condition. It was suggested by the British philosopher of language J. L. Austin in 1955 in the lectures now known as "How to Do Things With Words". Austin argued that performative utterances are not meaningfully evaluated as true or false but rather by other measures, which would hold that a statement such as "thank you" is not meant to describe a fact and to interpret it as

neg: Conjunction fallacy of the participants gave a wrong answer. Participants were forced to use a mathematical approach and thus recognised the difference more easily. However, in some tasks only based on frequencies, not on stories, that used clear logical formulations, conjunction fallacies continued to occur dominantly when the observed pattern of frequencies resembled a conjunction (only few exceptions). Conjunction fallacy The conjunction fallacy (also known as the Linda problem) is a formal fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one. The most often-cited example of this fallacy originated with Amos Tversky and

neg: Self-refuting idea the modern formulation of axiomatic set theory. While Russell's formalization did not contain such paradoxes, Kurt Gödel showed that it must contain independent statements. Any logical system that is rich enough to contain elementary arithmetic contains at least one proposition whose interpretation is "this proposition is unprovable" (from within the logical system concerned), and hence no such system can be both complete and consistent. Objectivists define the fallacy of the stolen concept: the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends. An example of the stolen

neg: Relativist fallacy have committed a fallacy. The accusation of having committed a fallacy might rest on either of two grounds: (1) the relativism on which the bogus defense rests is so simple and meritless that it straightforwardly contradicts the Law of Non-Contradiction; or (2) the defense (and thus the fallacy itself) is an example of ad hoc reasoning. It puts one in the position of asserting or implying that truth or standards of logical consistency are relative to a particular thinker or group and that under some other standard, the position is correct despite its failure to stand up to logic. Determining

neg: Relativist fallacy whether someone has committed a relativist fallacy—by any interpretation—requires distinguishing between things that are true "for" a particular person, and things that are true "about" that person. Take, for example, the statement proffered by Jim, "More Americans than ever are overweight." One may introduce arguments for and against this proposition, based upon such things as standards of statistical analysis, the definition of "overweight," etc. The position answers to objective logical debate. If Joe answers Jim, saying "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me," he has given an answer that is fallacious as well as

neg: Van Gogh fallacy Van Gogh fallacy The Van Gogh Fallacy is an example of a logical fallacy. It is a type of fallacy wherein the conclusion is affirmed by its consequent (fallacy of affirming the consequent) instead of its antecedent (modus ponens). Its name is derived from a particular case that argues: Although the argument itself sounds promising and provides hope to struggling artists and the like, it is invalid and should not be taken as it is. The Van Gogh Fallacy is problematic as it promotes wishful thinking. More often than not, it leads to unpleasant consequences. There are far more people

neg: Islam and domestic violence hadidth, Muhammad discouraged beating one's wife severely: Bahz bin Hakim reported on the authority of his father from his grandfather (Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah) as saying: "I said: Messenger of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her." The same hadith has been narrated with slightly different wording. In other versions of this hadith, only beating the face is discouraged. Some jurists

neg: When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You hid".."If you loved me with all of your heart/You'd never take a million dollars to part". He would use the instrumental of this song as both an instrumental track (with several Gaye ad-libs) and as the reprise of the album to end it. The song served as the template for Daryl Hall's song "Stop Loving Me, Stop Loving You," from his 1993 solo album, "Soul Alone." After being played the song by a friend and thinking it was an unreleased bootleg, Hall reworked the tune as a standard-structured R&B/pop song. When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop

neg: Psychic determinism my body, which seem logical and aim at inner balance. Everybody has in fact got an inner physician in oneself. What need is there of an outside doctor then? If you allow yourself lie at the will of your free inclinations, with no assumptions whatsoever, you will have the intuition of making things that may surprise you, nevertheless useful to your body and securing your health and high spirits. I read somewhere that one can be one's own doctor... Everybody can be one's own doctor." "We put a stop here to the flow of our patient's associations. We may notice

neg: Subverted support Subverted support Subverted support is a logical fallacy of explanation which attempts to explain something that does not happen. "X" happens because of "Y" (when "X" does not actually happen or exist) Explanation: Billions of children do not starve each year. Explanation: False if in truth, people do not oppose the strike or oppose the strike for different reasons. Explanation: False if John did not go to the store or if he did not want to see Maria The fallacy is true if a preceding statement claims that whatever follows is true. It is trues that billions of children starve

neg: March for Science scientific field "has always been political" and referred to the example of Galileo Galilei's confrontation with the political order. Holthaus wrote that the scientists must also protest when "truth itself is being called into question". Discussing science's role in policy and government, Rush Holt points out a fallacy in viewing science and politics as philosophically incompatible: "The ethic in the profession is that you stick to your science, and if you're interested in how science affects public policy or public questions, just let the facts speak for themselves. Of course, there's a fallacy there, too. Facts are, by themselves, voiceless."

neg: Implicit personality theory halo effect and logical error. The halo effect describes the tendency of an observer to form a generally favorable, unfavorable, or average impression of a specific person, and to allow that general impression to have an exaggerated effect on their judgments of that person along other trait dimensions. A very common example of the halo effect is when an observer considers attractiveness a favorable trait, and then assumes that a very attractive person whom he meets is also extremely friendly or helpful, because these traits are also favorable. On the other hand, a logical error fallacy is made when observers

neg: Disjunctive syllogism is an example: Here is another example: Please observe that the disjunctive syllogism works whether 'or' is considered 'exclusive' or 'inclusive' disjunction. See below for the definitions of these terms. There are two kinds of logical disjunction: The widely used English language concept of "or" is often ambiguous between these two meanings, but the difference is pivotal in evaluating disjunctive arguments. This argument: is valid and indifferent between both meanings. However, only in the "exclusive" meaning is the following form valid: However, if the fact is true it does not commit the fallacy. With the "inclusive" meaning you could draw

neg: Affirming a disjunct Affirming a disjunct The formal fallacy of affirming a disjunct also known as the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct occurs when a deductive argument takes the following logical form: Or in logical operators: Where formula_3 denotes a logical assertion. The fallacy lies in concluding that one disjunct must be false because the other disjunct is true; in fact they may both be true because "or" is defined inclusively rather than exclusively. It is a fallacy of equivocation between the operations OR and XOR. Affirming the disjunct should not be confused with the valid argument known

neg: Magic smoke occurring. This is an example of the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. This has led to phrases (and variants of) "You let the smoke out!", "There's too many angry pixies running through the circuit!", "The magic smoke is escaping." or "I think you set your power supply too high; there is magic smoke coming from that resistor!" as euphemisms for the destruction of a component by overheating. When a device is powered on for the first time, it is often called a "smoke test". Red Hat Linux 6.1 included the following text in the hardware compatibility guide: Tier 3

neg: Subverted support to death every year. Billions of children starve to death because we live in a world that does not care. Subverted support Subverted support is a logical fallacy of explanation which attempts to explain something that does not happen. "X" happens because of "Y" (when "X" does not actually happen or exist) Explanation: Billions of children do not starve each year. Explanation: False if in truth, people do not oppose the strike or oppose the strike for different reasons. Explanation: False if John did not go to the store or if he did not want to see Maria The fallacy

neg: When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You "When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You" is a 1978 song recorded by singer Marvin Gaye for his "Here, My Dear" album, following his 1976 divorce when he was ordered to give half the takings of his next album to ex-wife Anna Gaye. In the album, he "poured his emotions into songs agonisingly documenting their relationship's rise and fall." The song was a six-minute-long opus that has been considered the centerpiece of the "Here, My Dear" album. As if offering confessional testimony to

neg: Descriptive fallacy which were the focus of logical positivism) and performative utterances (statements that perform or do something), Austin developed his speech act theory to investigate how we do things with words. Descriptive fallacy The descriptive fallacy refers to reasoning which treats a speech act as a logical proposition, which would be mistaken when the meaning of the statement is not based on its truth condition. It was suggested by the British philosopher of language J. L. Austin in 1955 in the lectures now known as "How to Do Things With Words". Austin argued that performative utterances are not meaningfully evaluated as

neg: Slothful induction fallacy (which perhaps occurs more often) is called hasty generalization. Slothful induction Slothful induction, also called appeal to coincidence, is a fallacy in which an inductive argument is denied its proper conclusion, despite strong evidence for inference. An example of slothful induction might be that of a careless man who has had twelve accidents in the last six months and it is strongly evident that it was due to his negligence or rashness, yet keeps insisting that it is just a coincidence and not his fault. Its logical form is: evidence suggests X results in Y, yet the person in

neg: Formal fallacy beaks, for example: an octopus and a squid both have beaks, some turtles and cetaceans have beaks. Errors of this type occur because people reverse a premise. In this case, "All birds have beaks" is converted to "All beaked animals are birds." The reversed premise is plausible because few people are aware of any instances of "beaked creatures" besides birds—but this premise is not the one that was given. In this way, the deductive fallacy is formed by points that may individually appear logical, but when placed together are shown to be incorrect. In everyday speech, a "non sequitur" is

neg: Harvey (film) came to meet Harvey, and explains the way in which people react when they meet them. In a later scene, he gives Dr. Chumley an insight into his philosophy of life: Elwood also explains that Harvey has the power to stop time: "Did I tell you he could stop clocks? Well, you've heard the expression 'His face would stop a clock'? Well, Harvey can look at your clock and stop it. And you can go anywhere you like, with anyone you like, and stay as long as you like. And when you get back, not one minute will have ticked

neg: Complex question loaded language – having an unspoken and often emotive implication), it is known as a loaded question. For example, a classic loaded question, containing incriminating assumptions that the questioned persons seem to admit to if they answer the questions instead of challenging them, is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If the person questioned answers, "Yes", then that implies that he has previously beaten his wife. A loaded question may be asked to trick the respondent into admitting something that the questioner believes to be true, and which may in fact be true. So the previous question is "loaded", whether

neg: Post hoc ergo propter hoc The fallacy lies in a conclusion based "solely" on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection. A simple example is "the rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise." The form of the "post hoc fallacy" is expressed as follows: When B is undesirable, this pattern is often combined with the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent, assuming the logical inverse holds: Avoiding A will prevent B. Post hoc ergo propter hoc Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this,

neg: Inference meaningful pattern—that the small city was no longer small. Why would you put a large city of your best and brightest in the middle of nowhere? To hide them, of course. An incorrect inference is known as a fallacy. Philosophers who study informal logic have compiled large lists of them, and cognitive psychologists have documented many biases in human reasoning that favor incorrect reasoning. AI systems first provided automated logical inference and these were once extremely popular research topics, leading to industrial applications under the form of expert systems and later business rule engines. More recent work on automated theorem

neg: Fallacy composition which is premise and inference based ambiguity, e. g. "this must be a good basketball team because each of its members is an outstanding player". Even the definitions of the classes may not be unique. For example, Whately treats material fallacies as a complement to logical fallacies, which makes them synonymous to informal fallacies, while others consider them to be a subclass of informal fallacies, like mentioned above. Aristotle was the first to systematize logical errors into a list, as being able to refute an opponent's thesis is one way of winning an argument. Aristotle's "Sophistical Refutations" ("De Sophisticis

neg: Formal fallacy nonexistent principle: This is fallacious. And so is this: Indeed, there is no logical principle that states: An easy way to show the above inference as invalid is by using Venn diagrams. In logical parlance, the inference is invalid, since under at least one interpretation of the predicates it is not validity preserving. People often have difficulty applying the rules of logic. For example, a person may say the following syllogism is valid, when in fact it is not: "That creature" may well be a bird, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Certain other animals also have

neg: Fallacies of definition "flying animal with no legs" are mutually exclusive to each other: they cannot refer to the same thing. Definitions may fail by imposing conflicting requirements, making it impossible for them to apply to anything at all. An example would occur if a cow were defined as a legless quadruped. The definist fallacy is a logical fallacy, coined by William Frankena in 1939, that involves the definition of one property in terms of another. Fallacies of definition Fallacies of definition are the various ways in which definitions can fail to explain terms. The phrase is used to suggest an analogy with

neg: Reification (fallacy) where a reified abstraction is intended as a figure of speech, and actually understood as such. But the use of reification in logical reasoning or rhetoric is misleading and usually regarded as a fallacy. From Latin "res" ("thing") and -"fication", a suffix related to "facere" ("to make"). Thus "reification" can be loosely translated as "thing-making"; the turning of something abstract into a concrete thing or object. Reification takes place when natural or social processes are misunderstood or simplified; for example, when human creations are described as "facts of nature, results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will". Reification may

neg: Jim Rome New Orleans Hornets, and he asked, "Was the fix in for the lottery?" Stern replied with two answers: "Number one, no; and a statement, shame on you for asking." He then proceeded to ask Rome the loaded question example of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and accused Rome of "making a career out of cheap thrills". This led to a heated exchange between Rome and Stern, ending when Stern said he had "to go call someone important like Stephen A. Smith." On January 1, 2015, Rome sent out a tweet that stated, "Is there anyone not in a

neg: OS/8 across all three architectures: PDP-8s, PDP-10s, and PDP-11s.) The basic OS and CCL implemented many rather sophisticated commands, many of which still do not exist in modern command languages, not even in MS-DOS, Windows, or Unix-like operating systems. For example, the COMPILE command would automatically find the right compiler for a given source file and start the compile/assemble/link cycle. The ASSIGN and DEASSIGN commands allowed one to use logical device names in a program instead of physical names (as required in MS-DOS). For example, your program could write to device FLOP:AAA.TXT, and if you first did an "ASSIGN FLOP: RXA2:"

neg: Bulverism Bulverism Bulverism is a logical fallacy. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error." The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive. The term "Bulverism" was coined by C. S. Lewis to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates. Similar to Antony Flew's "subject/motive shift", Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being

neg: Ad hominem conspiracy theories, witch-hunts, show trials, struggle sessions, and other coercive circumstances in which the person targeted is presumed guilty.) Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of "ad hominem" fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument. This form of the argument is as follows: An example of this fallacy could be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?" When a statement is

neg: Implicit personality theory make judgments about trait relationships based on correlations they believe make sense logically, instead of forming these connections based on observations of real-life trait relationships. An example of making the logical error would be assuming that a person who is physically strong and muscular is also athletic. This trait relationship makes logical sense, but without observations to back it up, assuming this relationship would be making the logical error. While both the halo effect and the logical error fallacy result in unfounded trait correlations, the difference is that the halo effect refers to trait correlations of a specific person, while

neg: Bernard Davis (biologist) the term "moralistic fallacy" after calls for ethical guidelines to control the study of what could allegedly become "dangerous knowledge." The term was intended as a converse to the naturalistic fallacy, a term coined by G.E. Moore in the early twentieth century but often applied to certain related views of David Hume in the eighteenth century. Hume pointed out the logical fallacy that occurs when deductive reasoning jumps from statements about "what is" to prescriptions about "what ought to be". Davis thus referred to the "moralistic fallacy" as "in effect, an illogical effort to derive an 'is' from an 'ought'."

neg: Controllability in coordinates). This example holds for all positive formula_92, but the case of formula_103 is easier to visualize. Consider an analogy to the previous example system. You are sitting in your car on an infinite, flat plane and facing north. The goal is to reach any point in the plane by driving a distance in a straight line, come to a full stop, turn, and driving another distance, again, in a straight line. If your car has no steering then you can only drive straight, which means you can only drive on a line (in this case the north-south line

neg: Belief bias "syllogism" is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the "premises") of a specific form. The classical example of a valid syllogism is: An example of an invalid syllogism is: Typically, a majority of test subjects in studies incorrectly identify this syllogism as one in which the conclusion follows from the premises. It might be true "in the real world" that a) "girls study" and b) "this is because they are ambitious". However, this argument is a fallacy, because the conclusion is not supported by its premises. The validity

neg: Attacking Faulty Reasoning Attacking Faulty Reasoning Attacking Faulty Reasoning is a textbook on logical fallacies by T. Edward Damer that has been used for many years in a number of college courses on logic, critical thinking, argumentation, and philosophy. It explains 60 of the most commonly committed fallacies. Each of the fallacies is concisely defined and illustrated with several relevant examples. For each fallacy, the text gives suggestions about how to address or to "attack" the fallacy when it is encountered. The organization of the fallacies comes from the author’s own fallacy theory, which defines a fallacy as a violation of one of

neg: Attacking Faulty Reasoning the five criteria of a good argument: Each fallacy falls into at least one of Damer's five fallacy categories, which derive from the above criteria. The text also sets forth 12 principles that constitute a "Code of Conduct for Effective Discussion." This code incorporates Damer’s fallacy theory and provides a procedural and ethical standard for the development of an effective intellectual style to be used when engaging in a rational discussion of important issues. Attacking Faulty Reasoning Attacking Faulty Reasoning is a textbook on logical fallacies by T. Edward Damer that has been used for many years in a number

neg: Post hoc ergo propter hoc Post hoc ergo propter hoc Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy that states "Since event Y "followed" event X, event Y must have been "caused" by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" ("with this, therefore because of this"), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. "Post hoc" is a particularly tempting error because correlation appears to suggest causality.

neg: Arousal of low pressure stimulations. Problem solving is the cognitive process that someone uses to achieve a goal whenever a solution cannot be determined by others. For example, you are with your buddies on a trip and get a flat tire. Everyone looks around nervously because nobody knows how to change a flat. But then you remember that you took an automotive class in college where you learned to change flat tires. You change the tire and solve the issue with your cognitive problem solving. Cognitively, the utilization of logical analysis and problem solving has been associated with higher levels of

neg: Name-dropping imply the involvement of a historical figure in the action (for example, in a story set during World War II, mentioning Adolf Hitler or Winston Churchill). Name-dropping Name-dropping is the practice of naming or alluding to important people and institutions within a conversation, story, song, online identity, or other communication. The term often connotes an attempt to impress others; it is usually regarded negatively, and under certain circumstances may constitute a breach of professional ethics. When used as part of a logical argument it can be an example of the false authority fallacy. A 'shout-out' can be regarded as a

neg: Cherry picking harvest, while ignoring other fruit that is higher up on the tree and thus more difficult to obtain (see low-hanging fruit). Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to an argument, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available. Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even

neg: Politician's syllogism the premises are true. The politician's syllogism similarly says nothing about all known "somethings" that could be done. As is common with fallacious undistributed middle arguments, it can also be seen as the fallacy of affirming the consequent when restated as an equivalent hypothetical syllogism: Politician's syllogism The politician's syllogism, also known as the politician's logic or the politician's fallacy, is a logical fallacy of the form: The politician's fallacy was identified in a 1988 episode of the BBC television political sitcom "Yes, Prime Minister" titled "Power to the People", and has taken added life on the Internet. The syllogism,

neg: Mu (negative) used to indicate the question cannot be answered because the conditions of the question do not match the reality. A layperson's example of this concept is often invoked by the loaded question "Have you stopped beating your wife?", to which "mu" would be the only respectable response. Because of this meaning, programming language Perl 6 uses "Mu" for the root of its type hierarchy. In the Japanese manga series, "Death Note", ends in a thematic conclusion which contains MU's usage as "not applicable": "All humans, without exception, will eventually die. The place they go after is MU (無, Nothingness)". Tsugumi

neg: Fox Major League Baseball tell "himself" where the ball is!" Merrill heard about that, took offense to it, and fired back in his autobiography that he was letting the other umpires know that the situation was under control. Meanwhile, when rule questions come up during a broadcast, McCarver frequently will explain the rule, sometimes incorrectly. For example, after a St. Louis Cardinals balk in Game 4 of the 2006 NLCS, McCarver explained, "You have to have 'one thousand one' when coming to a stop, and you have to stop your glove in the same place every time in front of your body", when the

neg: Begging the question that phrase with the question, for example: "I weigh 120 kg and have severely clogged arteries, which begs the question: why have I not started exercising?" For grammatical reasons and because the term has a specific, different meaning in philosophy, logic, and law, some commenters note that such usage is mistaken, or at best, unclear even as sources such as the Meriam Webster Dictionary and non-prescriptivist critics acknowledge the usage of the phrase as a synonym for “raises the question” as popularly accepted. Begging the question Begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume

neg: Tu quoque Tu quoque Tu quoque (; Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). "Tu quoque" "argument" follows the pattern: An example would be It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument. It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the "ad hominem" fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument

neg: Name calling a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem. Politicians sometimes resort to “name calling” during political campaigns or public events with the intentions of gaining advantage over, or defending themselves from, an opponent or critic. Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" is not on its own an example of the "argumentum ad hominem" logical fallacy. The fallacy occurs only if personal attacks are employed to devalue a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker; personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument are not "ad hominem"

neg: Steal Like an Artist act favorably – bad winters or summers can force you to be indoors and work on your projects. 8. Be nice (the world is a small town.): Stop fighting and channel your rage into a creative pursuit. Show appreciation for the good things you see around you. 9. Be boring (it's the only way to get work done.): You can’t be creative all the time, so set a routine – for example, with a regular day job which sets a fixed schedule and exposes you to new people and skills. 10. Creativity is subtraction": In an age of information overload

neg: Fallacy contains valuable remarks. See Rd. Whateley's Logic, bk. v.; A. de Morgan, Formal Logic (1847); A. Sidgwick, Fallacies (1883) and other textbooks. A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or "non sequitur" (Latin for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. The flaw can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic. Such an argument is always considered to be wrong. The presence of the formal fallacy does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or may even be more

neg: Women in Islam or beat. The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed by some Islamic scholars. The Lebanese educator and journalist 'Abd al-Qadir al-Maghribi argued that perpetrating acts of domestic violence goes against Muḥammad's own example and injunction. In his 1928 essay, "Muḥammad and Woman", al-Maghribi said: "He [Muḥammad] prohibited a man from beating his wife and noted that beating was not appropriate for the marital relationship between them". Muḥammad underlined the moral and logical inconsistency in beating one's wife during the day and then praising her at night as a prelude to conjugal relations. The Austrian scholar and translator of

neg: Argumentum ad baculum Argumentum ad baculum Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick") is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. One participates in "argumentum ad baculum" when one points out the negative consequences of holding the contrary position (ex. believe what I say, or I will hit you). It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences. A fallacious logical argument based on "argumentum ad baculum" generally proceeds as follows: This form of argument is

neg: Anecdotal evidence way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization. For example, here is anecdotal evidence presented as proof of a desired conclusion: There's abundant proof that drinking water cures cancer. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of

neg: Formal fallacy an argument is true. Formal arguments can either be valid or invalid. A valid argument may also be sound or unsound: Ideally, the best kind of formal argument is a sound, valid argument. Formal fallacies do not take into account the soundness of an argument, but rather its validity. Premises in formal logic are commonly represented by letters (most commonly p and q). A fallacy occurs when the structure of the argument is incorrect, despite the truth of the premises. As modus ponens, the following argument contains no formal fallacies: A logical fallacy associated with this format of argument is

neg: Correlation does not imply causation Correlation does not imply causation In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other. That "correlation proves causation" is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event,

neg: Relativist fallacy a fallacy to describe a controversial view as a "fallacy"—not, at least, without arguing that it is a fallacy. In any event, it does not do to argue as follows: This is an example of circular reasoning. The second step includes an argument from fallacy. On the other hand, if someone adopts a simple relativist stance as an ad hoc defense of a controversial or otherwise compromised position—saying, in effect, that "what is true for you is not necessarily true for me," and thereby attempting to avoid having to mount any further defense of the position—one might be said to

neg: Definist fallacy Definist fallacy The definist fallacy (sometimes Socratic fallacy) is a logical fallacy, coined by William Frankena in 1939, that involves the definition of one property in terms of another. The philosopher William Frankena first used the term "definist fallacy" in a paper published in the British analytic philosophy journal "Mind" in 1939. In this article he generalized and critiqued G. E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy, which argued that "good" cannot be defined by natural properties, as a broader confusion caused by attempting to define a term using non-synonymous properties. Frankena argued that the "naturalistic fallacy" is a complete misnomer because it

neg: Fallacy of composition Fallacy of composition The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the "whole" from the fact that it is true of some "part" of the whole (or even of "every" proper part). For example: "This wheel is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle to which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is fallacious, because vehicles are made with a variety of parts, many of which may not be made of rubber. This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a

neg: Fallacy of division are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong. The four common statistical ecological fallacies are: confusion between ecological correlations and individual correlations, confusion between group average and total average, Simpson's paradox, and other statistical methods. Fallacy of division A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts. An example: The converse of this fallacy is called fallacy of composition, which arises when one fallaciously attributes a property of some part of a thing to the thing as a whole.

neg: Courtier's reply fallacies or sophistry, and characterizes Muehlhauser's assertion that criticism of someone's philosophical or theological ignorance is irrelevant when the existence or otherwise of God is disputed as a case of the special pleading fallacy. Feser further claims that asserting that the "average believer" is not well informed about theology is a red herring, since something being true does not depend on how many people believe it is true. Courtier's reply The courtier's reply is an alleged type of logical fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials,

neg: Correlation does not imply causation and vice versa. The third-cause fallacy (also known as "ignoring a common cause" or "questionable cause") is a logical fallacy where a spurious relationship is confused for causation. It asserts that X causes Y when, in reality, X and Y are both caused by Z. It is a variation on the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy and a member of the questionable cause group of fallacies. All of these examples deal with a lurking variable, which is simply a hidden third variable that affects both causes of the correlation. A difficulty often also arises where the third factor, though

neg: Circular reasoning Circular reasoning Circular reasoning (, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is

neg: Opinion Opinion An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive. A given opinion may deal with subjective matters in which there is no conclusive finding, or it may deal with facts which are sought to be disputed by the logical fallacy that one is entitled to their opinions. Distinguishing fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be agreed to by the consensus of experts. An example is: "United States of America was involved in the Vietnam War," versus "United States of America was right to get involved in the Vietnam War". An opinion may

neg: Danite this county, that vengeance would overtake you sooner or later, and that when it did come it would be as furious as the mountain torrent, and as terrible as the beating tempest; but you have affected to despise our warnings, and pass them off with a sneer, or a grin, or a threat, and pursued your former course; and vengeance sleepeth not, neither does it slumber; and unless you heed us this time, and attend to our request, it will overtake you at an hour when you do not expect, and at a day when you do not look for

neg: Gambler's fallacy isolated instances, or even sequentially. Another example would involve hearing that a teenager has unprotected sex and becomes pregnant on a given night, and that she has been engaging in unprotected sex for longer than if we hear she had unprotected sex but did not become pregnant, when the probability of becoming pregnant as a result of each intercourse is independent of the amount of prior intercourse. Another psychological perspective states that gambler's fallacy can be seen as the counterpart to basketball's hot-hand fallacy, in which people tend to predict the same outcome as the previous event - known as

neg: Disinhibition the behaviour occurs, assertively in a nonjudgemental, clear, unambiguous way provide feedback that the behaviour is inappropriate, and say what you prefer instead. For example, "Jane, you're standing too close when you are speaking to me, I feel uncomfortable, please take a step back", or "I don't like it when you say I look hot in front of your wife, I feel uncomfortable, I am your Attendant Carer/Support Worker, I am here to help you with your shopping". Then re-direct to the next activity. Any subsequent behaviour ignore. Then generally, as almost all behaviour is communication, understand what the behaviour

neg: Cartesian materialism body can affect the mind; for example, when you place your hand in a fire, the body relays sensory information from your hand to your mind, which results in your having the experience of pain. Similarly, the mind can affect the body; for example, you can decide to move your hand and your muscles obey, moving your hand as you desired. Descartes noted that, although our two eyes independently see an object, our conscious experience is not of two separate fields of vision each possessing an image of the object. Rather, we seem to experience one continuous, oval-shaped field of

neg: I'm entitled to my opinion I'm entitled to my opinion I'm entitled to my opinion or I have a right to my opinion is a logical fallacy in which a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion. The statement exemplifies a red herring or thought-terminating cliché. The logical fallacy is often presented as Let's agree to disagree. Whether one has a particular entitlement or right is irrelevant to whether one's assertion is true or false. To assert the existence of the right is a failure to assert any justification for the opinion. Such an assertion, however, can also be

neg: Alfred the Great none for those who despised Him, nor did Christ, the Son of God, adjudge any for the one who betrayed Him to death; and He commanded everyone to love his lord as Himself". Alfred's transformation of Christ's commandment, from "Love your neighbour as yourself" (Matt. 22:39–40) to love your secular lord as you would love the Lord Christ himself, underscores the importance that Alfred placed upon lordship which he understood as a sacred bond instituted by God for the governance of man. When one turns from the domboc's introduction to the laws themselves it is difficult to uncover any logical

neg: Opinion the evaluation of a topic by a newspaper as conveyed on its editorial page. Opinion An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive. A given opinion may deal with subjective matters in which there is no conclusive finding, or it may deal with facts which are sought to be disputed by the logical fallacy that one is entitled to their opinions. Distinguishing fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be agreed to by the consensus of experts. An example is: "United States of America was involved in the Vietnam War," versus "United States