The argument from fallacy, also known as argumentum ad logicam or fallacy fallacy, is a logical fallacy which assumes that if an argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be false. It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with fallacy. ...
It has the general argument form: In logic, the argument form or test form of an argument results from replacing the different words, or sentences, that make up the argument with letters, along the lines of algebra; the letters represent logical variables. ...
If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.
Examples:
Tom: "All cats are animals. Ginger is an animal. This means Ginger is a cat.".
Bill: "Ah you just committed the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. Sorry, you are wrong, which means that Ginger is not a cat".
Tom: "OK — I'll prove I'm English — I speak English so that proves it".
Bill: "But Americans and Canadians, among others, speak English too. You have committed the package-deal fallacy, assuming that speaking English and being English don't always go together. That means you are not English".
Showing that arguments given for a position are fallacies does not disprove the position. Of course, the mere fact that the argument from fallacy can be invoked against a position does not automatically "prove" the position either, as this would itself be a self-referential argument from fallacy. The example below may clarify this: Trinomial name Felis silvestris catus (Linnaeus, 1758) The cat (or domestic cat, house cat) is a small carnivorous mammal. ... Animalia redirects here. ... Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy in the form of a hypothetical proposition. ... The logical fallacy of the package deal consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way. ...
Tom: Your assumption that Ginger is not a cat based on my error uses the argument from fallacy. Therefore, Ginger absolutely must be a cat.
This argument can be seen as a variant of the ad hominem fallacy, because it relies on the opposing speaker's seeming lack of credibility, a factor which is usually irrelevant to the actual correctness of a given theory. It has been suggested that Personal attack be merged into this article or section. ... Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the propensity of the observer to believe that statement. ...
A fallacy is a component of an argument which is demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument invalid (except in the case of begging the question) in whole.
Because the validity of a deductive arguments depends on its form, a formal fallacy (or logical fallacy) is a deductive argument which has an invalid form, whereas an informal fallacy is any other invalid mode of reasoning whose flaw is not in the form of the argument.
Fallacy of Accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) meaning to argue erroneously from a general rule to a particular case, without proper regard to particular conditions which vitiate the application of the general rule; e.g.
The argument from fallacy, also known as argumentum ad logicam or fallacyfallacy, is a logical fallacy which assumes that because an argument is fallacious then its conclusion must be false.
Showing that arguments given for a position are fallacies does not disprove the position.
It may, nevertheless, be correct; the argument merely should not compel anyone to believe, either way.
Feeds |
Contact