DOCSLIB.ORG

List of Fallacies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
List of Fallacies List of fallacies For specific popular misconceptions, see List of common if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose misconceptions. correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those log- ical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guar- A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric anteed to yield true conclusions. Types of propositional fallacies: which undermines an argument’s logical validity or more generally an argument’s logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. • Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the These are commonly used styles of argument in convinc- other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.[8] ing people, where the focus is on communication and re- sults rather than the correctness of the logic, and may be • Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an in- used whether the point being advanced is correct or not. dicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.[8] 1 Formal fallacies • Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore Main article: Formal fallacy not B.[8] A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument’s form.[1] All formal fallacies are specific types 1.2 Quantification fallacies of non sequiturs. A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the • Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the something for granted because it would probably be quantifier of the conclusion. the case (or might be the case).[2][3] Types of Quantification fallacies: • Argument from fallacy – also known as fallacy fal- • Existential fallacy – an argument that has a universal lacy, assumes that if an argument for some conclu- premise and a particular conclusion.[9] sion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.[4] • Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking 1.3 Formal syllogistic fallacies into account the effect of prior probabilities.[5] Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in • Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an out- syllogisms. come simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single • Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (il- [6] one of them. licit negative) – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative • Masked-man fallacy (illicit substitution of identi- premise.[9] cals) – the substitution of identical designators in a [7] true statement can lead to a false one. • Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllo- gism that is invalid because both of its premises are [9] 1.1 Propositional fallacies negative. • Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) – a cat- A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns egorical syllogism that has four terms.[10] compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must sat- • Illicit major – a categorical syllogism that is invalid isfy the relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most because its major term is not distributed in the major commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only premise but distributed in the conclusion.[9] 1 2 2 INFORMAL FALLACIES • Illicit minor – a categorical syllogism that is invalid • Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando)– because its minor term is not distributed in the minor when the reasoner begins with what he or she is try- premise but distributed in the conclusion.[9] ing to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion. • Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (il- • licit affirmative) – when a categorical syllogism has Circular cause and consequence – where the conse- a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.[9] quence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. • Fallacy of the undistributed middle – the middle • [11] Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line- term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[25] 2 Informal fallacies • Correlative-based fallacies Main article: Informal fallacy • Correlation proves causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that because there is a correlation between two variables Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for rea- that one caused the other.[26] sons other than structural (formal) flaws and usually re- • quire examination of the argument’s content.[12] Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[27] • Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem)– dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating • Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – ar- proof for its absurdity.[13] guing that, because something is so incredi- ble/amazing/ununderstandable, it must be the result • Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, ar- of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.[28] gumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim • Double counting – counting events or occurrences is true because it has not been or cannot be proven more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which false, or vice versa.[14] leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases ex- ceeding unity. • Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – “I cannot imagine how this could be true; • Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with therefore, it must be false.”[15] more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).[29] • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nau- seam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it • Ambiguous middle term – a common ambi- has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to guity in syllogisms in which the middle term is discuss it anymore;[16][17] sometimes confused with equivocated.[30] proof by assertion • Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against • Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)– the original wording.[31] where the conclusion is based on the absence of ev- idence, rather than the existence of evidence.[18][19] • Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle statistics collected for the group to which those in- ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad tempe- dividuals belong.[32] rantiam) – assuming that the compromise between • Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the origi- two positions is always correct.[20] nal or historical meaning of a word or phrase is nec- essarily similar to its actual present-day usage.[33] • Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below. • Fallacy of accent – a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed • Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing by placing an unusual prosodic stress, or when, in what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a written passage, it’s left unclear which word the [21][22][23][24] a premise. emphasis was supposed to fall on. • Shifting the burden of proof (see – onus probandi) • Fallacy of composition – assuming that something – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is true of part of a whole must also be true of the false. whole.[34] 3 • Fallacy of division – assuming that something true into the content of the process which conditions this of a thing must also be true of all or some of its completed result.[41] parts.[35] • Homunculus fallacy – where a “middle-man” is used • False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrele- for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive vant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated middle-men. Explains without actually explaining source in support of an argument. the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept it- • Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) self, without first defining or explaining the original – refers to the selective excerpting of words concept. Explaining thought as something produced from their original context in a way that dis- by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the [36] torts the source’s intended meaning. head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking [42] • False authority (single authority) – using an expert of (as different but the same). dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell • Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowl- a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority edge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must fallacy. know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their [43] • False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurca- entire field is put to question. tion, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative state- • If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both ments are held to be the only possible options, when sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively [37] in reality there are more. emotionally sensitive. • False equivalence – describing a situation of logical • Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient in- and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none. formation is provided to make a complete compari- • Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fal- son. lacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium in- • Inconsistent comparison – where different methods terrogationum) – someone asks a question that pre- of comparison are used, leaving one with a false im- supposes something that has not been proven or ac- pression of the whole comparison. cepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question lim- • Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ulti- its direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s mate meaning of an expression must be consistent agenda. with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center
    Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center Ad hominem (Argument to the person): Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. We would take her position on child abuse more seriously if she weren’t so rude to the press. Ad populum appeal (appeal to the public): Draws on whatever people value such as nationality, religion, family. A vote for Joe Smith is a vote for the flag. Alleged certainty: Presents something as certain that is open to debate. Everyone knows that… Obviously, It is obvious that… Clearly, It is common knowledge that… Certainly, Ambiguity and equivocation: Statements that can be interpreted in more than one way. Q: Is she doing a good job? A: She is performing as expected. Appeal to fear: Uses scare tactics instead of legitimate evidence. Anyone who stages a protest against the government must be a terrorist; therefore, we must outlaw protests. Appeal to ignorance: Tries to make an incorrect argument based on the claim never having been proven false. Because no one has proven that food X does not cause cancer, we can assume that it is safe. Appeal to pity: Attempts to arouse sympathy rather than persuade with substantial evidence. He embezzled a million dollars, but his wife had just died and his child needed surgery. Begging the question/Circular Logic: Proof simply offers another version of the question itself. Wrestling is dangerous because it is unsafe. Card stacking: Ignores evidence from the one side while mounting evidence in favor of the other side. Users of hearty glue say that it works great! (What is missing: How many users? Great compared to what?) I should be allowed to go to the party because I did my math homework, I have a ride there and back, and it’s at my friend Jim’s house.
    [Show full text]
  • Couch's “Physical Alteration” Fallacy: Its Origins And
    COUCH’S “PHYSICAL ALTERATION” FALLACY: ITS ORIGINS AND CONSEQUENCES Richard P. Lewis,∗ Lorelie S. Masters,∗∗ Scott D. Greenspan*** & Chris Kozak∗∗∗∗ I. INTRODUCTION Look at virtually any Covid-19 case favoring an insurer, and you will find a citation to Section 148:46 of Couch on Insurance.1 It is virtually ubiquitous: courts siding with insurers cite Couch as restating a “widely held rule” on the meaning of “physical loss or damage”—words typically in the trigger for property-insurance coverage, including business- income coverage. It has been cited, ad nauseam, as evidence of a general consensus that all property-insurance claims require some “distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration of the property.”2 Indeed, some pro-insurer decisions substitute a citation to this section for an actual analysis of the specific language before the court. Couch is generally recognized as a significant insurance treatise, and courts have cited it for almost a century.3 That ∗ Partner, ReedSmith LLP, New York. ∗∗ Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Washington D.C. *** Senior Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York. ∗∗∗∗ Associate, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun, LLP, Indianapolis. 1 10A STEVEN PLITT, ET AL., COUCH ON INSURANCE 3D § 148:46. As shown below, some courts quote Couch itself, while others cite cases citing Couch and merely intone the “distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration” language without citing Couch itself. Couch First and Couch Second were published in hardback books (with pocket parts), in 1929 and 1959 respectively. As explained below (infra n.5), Couch 3d, a looseleaf, was first published in 1995.. 2 Id. (emphasis added); Oral Surgeons, P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • A Pragmatic Study of Fallacy in George W. Bush's Political Speeches Pjaee, 17(12) (2020)
    A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF FALLACY IN GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLITICAL SPEECHES PJAEE, 17(12) (2020) A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF FALLACY IN GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLITICAL SPEECHES Dr. Ghanim Jwaid Al-Sieedy1, Haider Rajih Wadaah Al-Jilihawi2 1,2University of Karbala - College of Education. Dr. Ghanim Jwaid Al-Sieedy , Haider Rajih Wadaah Al-Jilihawi , A Pragmatic Study Of Fallacy In George W. Bush's Political Speeches , Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 18(4). ISSN 1567-214x. Keywords: Political speeches, Pragmatics, Fallacy, Argument. Abstract: A fallacy can be described as the act of issuing a faulty argument to support and reinforce a previously published argument for purposes of persuasion. However, a fallacy is a broad subject that has been addressed from several viewpoints. A few experiments have tried to counter the fallacy pragmatically. However, the attempts above have suffered from shortcomings, which made them incomplete accounts in this regard. Hence, this study has set itself to provide pragmatic models for the analysis of fallacy as far as its pragmatic structure, forms, methods, and applications are concerned. These models use many models produced by several academics and the researchers themselves' observations. The validity of the established models was tested by reviewing seven speeches by George W. Bush taken before and after the war in Iraq (2002-2008). The analyses demonstrated the efficacy of the models created. Mostly because they have yielded varied results, it is clear that fallacy is a process of stages, with each round distinct for its pragmatic components and strategies. 1. Introduction: The fallacy has been regarded as a critical issue by numerous studies investigating the definition from different lenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Fitting Words Textbook
    FITTING WORDS Classical Rhetoric for the Christian Student TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface: How to Use this Book . 1 Introduction: The Goal and Purpose of This Book . .5 UNIT 1 FOUNDATIONS OF RHETORIC Lesson 1: A Christian View of Rhetoric . 9 Lesson 2: The Birth of Rhetoric . 15 Lesson 3: First Excerpt of Phaedrus . 21 Lesson 4: Second Excerpt of Phaedrus . 31 UNIT 2 INVENTION AND ARRANGEMENT Lesson 5: The Five Faculties of Oratory; Invention . 45 Lesson 6: Arrangement: Overview; Introduction . 51 Lesson 7: Arrangement: Narration and Division . 59 Lesson 8: Arrangement: Proof and Refutation . 67 Lesson 9: Arrangement: Conclusion . 73 UNIT 3 UNDERSTANDING EMOTIONS: ETHOS AND PATHOS Lesson 10: Ethos and Copiousness .........................85 Lesson 11: Pathos ......................................95 Lesson 12: Emotions, Part One ...........................103 Lesson 13: Emotions—Part Two ..........................113 UNIT 4 FITTING WORDS TO THE TOPIC: SPECIAL LINES OF ARGUMENT Lesson 14: Special Lines of Argument; Forensic Oratory ......125 Lesson 15: Political Oratory .............................139 Lesson 16: Ceremonial Oratory ..........................155 UNIT 5 GENERAL LINES OF ARGUMENT Lesson 17: Logos: Introduction; Terms and Definitions .......169 Lesson 18: Statement Types and Their Relationships .........181 Lesson 19: Statements and Truth .........................189 Lesson 20: Maxims and Their Use ........................201 Lesson 21: Argument by Example ........................209 Lesson 22: Deductive Arguments .........................217
    [Show full text]
  • The Critical Thinking Toolkit
    Galen A. Foresman, Peter S. Fosl, and Jamie Carlin Watson The CRITICAL THINKING The THE CRITICAL THINKING TOOLKIT GALEN A. FORESMAN, PETER S. FOSL, AND JAMIE C. WATSON THE CRITICAL THINKING TOOLKIT This edition first published 2017 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Galen A. Foresman, Peter S. Fosl, and Jamie C. Watson to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.
    [Show full text]
  • The Justice Academy Journal Law and Justice Executive Series Special Edition
    The Justice Academy Journal Law and Justice Executive Series Special Edition Critical Thinking, Common Fallacies, and Leadership One of my all-time favorite movies was Tom Clancy’s, Hunt for Red October. Within that movie there is a scene that I found fascinating within my capacity as a university professor teaching logic and statistics. The scene involves a JusticeAcademy.org meeting of top level decision makers who are gathered around a table in the basement of the Whitehouse, and after a briefing given by Jack Ryan pertain- he Justice Academy serves as a national repository ing to the design, construction, and launch of a new Russian submarine, the and portal for instructional programs and special- ized training materials that are produced by law National Security Advisor who is chairing the meeting asks Admiral Greer enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and the (the character played by James Earl Jones) what conclusions he has made. courts and makes these educational assets availa- ble to the general law enforcement community, at The Admiral responded, “Sir, the data support no conclusions as of yet”. I no charge. thought this statement was one of the more profound expressions that I had JusticeAcademy.org also sponsors comprehensive research into a variety of issues relative to the law ever heard in any movie. What an astonishing and refreshing response I and justice professions, as well as authoring and thought to myself. He was exactly right that it was premature, given the lim- advancing national strategic initiatives that deal with specific challenges. The intention of this ited information available at the time, to base any decision about the Rus- service is to support professional development, sian’s intent, mission, or objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacies in Reasoning
    FALLACIES IN REASONING FALLACIES IN REASONING OR WHAT SHOULD I AVOID? The strength of your arguments is determined by the use of reliable evidence, sound reasoning and adaptation to the audience. In the process of argumentation, mistakes sometimes occur. Some are deliberate in order to deceive the audience. That brings us to fallacies. I. Definition: errors in reasoning, appeal, or language use that renders a conclusion invalid. II. Fallacies In Reasoning: A. Hasty Generalization-jumping to conclusions based on too few instances or on atypical instances of particular phenomena. This happens by trying to squeeze too much from an argument than is actually warranted. B. Transfer- extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible. There are three different types of transfer: 1.) Fallacy of composition- occur when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole. 2.) Fallacy of division- error from arguing that what is true of the whole will be true of the parts. 3.) Fallacy of refutation- also known as the Straw Man. It occurs when an arguer attempts to direct attention to the successful refutation of an argument that was never raised or to restate a strong argument in a way that makes it appear weaker. Called a Straw Man because it focuses on an issue that is easy to overturn. A form of deception. C. Irrelevant Arguments- (Non Sequiturs) an argument that is irrelevant to the issue or in which the claim does not follow from the proof offered. It does not follow. D. Circular Reasoning- (Begging the Question) supports claims with reasons identical to the claims themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    But some groups are more equal than others – a critical review of the group- criterion in the concept of discrimination Draft version, December 2011 Introduction In this article I aim to discuss what I consider an underappreciated problem in the conceptualisation of discrimination, to wit limiting the definition to particular groups. That some form of grouping, and the divisions between people this implies, plays a necessary part in the definition of discrimination is obvious, in that the basis of discrimination is differential treatment, which presupposes distinguishing between those to be treated one way and those to be treated another. Any way of doing so may be said to rely on dividing people into groups, even if inexplicit and unreflective. Using groups in this rather trivial sense is uncontroversially necessary to the definition, because unless such distinctions are drawn no form of discrimination, even understood in its widest, non-normative sense, would be possible. But it is not this trivial sense with which I am concerned here. My concern is rather what I shall call the “group-criterion”: the idea, prominent in both legal and philosophical definitions, that particular groups are the subject-matter of the concept of discrimination, that these can be established prior to any specific case of discrimination, and, most importantly, that not all groups can be subject to discrimination. Typically, this condition is expressed in the form of what we might call “the prohibited list”: a selection of traits that must not be the basis of
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I
    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas. Adolf Hitler Until the habit of thinking is well formed, facing the situation to discover the facts requires an effort. For the mind tends to dislike what is unpleasant and so to sheer off from an adequate notice of that which is especially annoying. John Dewey, How We Think Introduction In everyday speech you may have heard someone refer to a commonly accepted belief as a fallacy. What is usually meant is that the belief is false, although widely accepted. In logic, a fallacy refers to logically weak argument appeal (not a belief or statement) that is widely used and successful. Here is our definition: A logical fallacy is an argument that is usually psychologically persuasive but logically weak. By this definition we mean that fallacious arguments work in getting many people to accept conclusions, that they make bad arguments appear good even though a little commonsense reflection will reveal that people ought not to accept the conclusions of these arguments as strongly supported. Although logicians distinguish between formal and informal fallacies, our focus in this chapter and the next one will be on traditional informal fallacies.1 For our purposes, we can think of these fallacies as "informal" because they are most often found in the everyday exchanges of ideas, such as newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, political speeches, advertisements, conversational disagreements between people in social networking sites and Internet discussion boards, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Fallacies and Distraction Techniques
    Sample Activity Learning Critical Thinking Through Astronomy: Logical Fallacies and Distraction Techniques Joe Heafner [email protected] Version 2017-09-13 STUDENT NOTE PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT. 2017-09-13 Activity0105 CONTENTS Contents QuestionsSample Activity1 Materials Needed 1 Points To Remember 1 1 Fallacies and Distractions1 Student1.1 Lying................................................. Version 1 1.2 Shifting The Burden.........................................2 1.3 Appeal To Emotion.........................................3 1.4 Appeal To The Past.........................................4 1.5 Appeal To Novelty..........................................5 1.6 Appeal To The People (Appeal To The Masses, Appeal To Popularity).............6 1.7 Appeal To Logic...........................................7 1.8 Appeal To Ignorance.........................................8 1.9 Argument By Repetition....................................... 10 1.10 Attacking The Person........................................ 11 1.11 Confirmation Bias.......................................... 12 1.12 Strawman Argument or Changing The Subject.......................... 13 1.13 False Premise............................................. 14 1.14 Hasty Generalization......................................... 15 1.15 Loaded Question........................................... 16 1.16 Feigning Offense........................................... 17 1.17 False Dilemma............................................ 17 1.18 Appeal To Authority........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Emergent Properties of Terrorist Networks, Percolation and Social Narrative
    Emergent Properties of Terrorist Networks, Percolation and Social Narrative Maurice Passman Adaptive Risk Technology, Ltd. London, UK [email protected] Philip V. Fellman American Military University Charles Town, WV [email protected] Abstract In this paper, we have initiated an attempt to develop and understand the driving mechanisms that underlies fourth-generation warfare (4GW). We have undertaken this from a perspective of endeavoring to understand the drivers of these events (i.e. the 'Physics') from a Complexity perspective by using a threshold-type percolation model. We propose to integrate this strategic level model with tactical level Big Data, behavioral, statistical projections via a ‘fractal’ operational level model and to construct a hierarchical framework that allows dynamic prediction. Our initial study concentrates on this strategic level, i.e. a percolation model. Our main conclusion from this initial study is that extremist terrorist events are not solely driven by the size of a supporting population within a socio-geographical location but rather a combination of ideological factors that also depends upon the involvement of the host population. This involvement, through the social, political and psychological fabric of society, not only contributes to the active participation of terrorists within society but also directly contributes to and increases the likelihood of the occurrence of terrorist events. Our calculations demonstrate the links between Islamic extremist terrorist events, the ideologies within the Muslim and non-Muslim population that facilitates these terrorist events (such as Anti-Zionism) and anti- Semitic occurrences of violence against the Jewish population. In a future paper, we hope to extend the work undertaken to construct a predictive model and extend our calculations to other forms of terrorism such as Right Wing fundamentalist terrorist events within the USA.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Fallacies and Examples Pdf
    10 fallacies and examples pdf Continue A: It is imperative that we promote adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project. Man B: Do you think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up, loser; You don't know what you're talking about. #2: Ad Populum: Ad Populum tries to prove the argument as correct simply because many people believe it is. Example: 80% of people are in favor of the death penalty, so the death penalty is moral. #3. Appeal to the body: In this erroneous argument, the author argues that his argument is correct because someone known or powerful supports it. Example: We need to change the age of drinking because Einstein believed that 18 was the right age of drinking. #4. Begging question: This happens when the author's premise and conclusion say the same thing. Example: Fashion magazines do not harm women's self-esteem because women's trust is not damaged after reading the magazine. #5. False dichotomy: This misconception is based on the assumption that there are only two possible solutions, so refuting one decision means that another solution should be used. It ignores other alternative solutions. Example: If you want better public schools, you should raise taxes. If you don't want to raise taxes, you can't have the best schools #6. Hasty Generalization: Hasty Generalization occurs when the initiator uses too small a sample size to support a broad generalization. Example: Sally couldn't find any cute clothes in the boutique and couldn't Maura, so there are no cute clothes in the boutique.
    [Show full text]