Logical fallacy

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Added a link to Secular Web)
("future examples" no longer needed)
Line 17: Line 17:
 
Some of the premises are factually incorrect, and the conclusion is also untrue.  However, the conclusion is an accurate deduction based on those premises.
 
Some of the premises are factually incorrect, and the conclusion is also untrue.  However, the conclusion is an accurate deduction based on those premises.
  
==Examples of Fallacies==
+
For examples of logical fallacies, visit the logical fallacies category.
Here are a few examples for future articles:
+
 
+
* [[Appeal to emotion]]
+
* [[Ad hominem]]
+
* [[Post hoc ergo propter hoc]]
+
 
+
There are many more in the logical fallacies category.
+
  
 
==External Links==
 
==External Links==

Revision as of 06:14, 15 August 2006

Template:WP-nameA logical fallacy can be any one of a number of formal or informal mistakes in a deductive proof.

Note that an argument can be fallacious but still correct. For instance:

  1. All fish live in the water.
  2. All trout live in the water.
  3. Therefore all trout are fish.

The premises are accurate and the conclusion is accurate, but the conclusion is not a valid inference from the premises. To see why, notice that we could use identical reasoning to prove that "all whales are fish."

Likewise, an argument can be logically valid but still wrong.

  1. All bugs are insects.
  2. All spiders are bugs.
  3. Therefore, all spiders are insects.

Some of the premises are factually incorrect, and the conclusion is also untrue. However, the conclusion is an accurate deduction based on those premises.

For examples of logical fallacies, visit the logical fallacies category.

External Links

Logic & Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument at The Secular Web

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox