Argument from fallacy
(Difference between revisions)
(→Form) |
(Added example) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The issue here is that while the presence of a fallacy is sufficient to render argument '''A''' invalid, it does not make '''C''' false. Rather, the truth value of '''C''' is unknown, because there is no valid argument as to whether '''C''' is true or false. | The issue here is that while the presence of a fallacy is sufficient to render argument '''A''' invalid, it does not make '''C''' false. Rather, the truth value of '''C''' is unknown, because there is no valid argument as to whether '''C''' is true or false. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Example=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Bob asserts that [[evolution]] is true. | ||
| + | * Bob says it's true because [[Charles Darwin]] said so - which is an [[argument from authority]], and thus a fallacy. | ||
| + | * Therefore, evolution is false. | ||
Revision as of 16:27, 13 September 2011
An argument from fallacy is a formal fallacy which occurs when analyzing an argument and assuming that, because the argument contains a logical fallacy the conclusion of that argument must be false. It is also commonly referred to as the fallacist's fallacy.
Form
The form of the argument from fallacy requires a meta-argument, or an argument about the claims of an argument.
- There is an argument A which has a conclusion C.
- That argument A contains a logical fallacy.
- Therefore, C is false.
The issue here is that while the presence of a fallacy is sufficient to render argument A invalid, it does not make C false. Rather, the truth value of C is unknown, because there is no valid argument as to whether C is true or false.
Example
- Bob asserts that evolution is true.
- Bob says it's true because Charles Darwin said so - which is an argument from authority, and thus a fallacy.
- Therefore, evolution is false.
