Logical fallacy

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
({WP-name} -> {wikipedia}; other various wording, wikif chgs)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WP-name|Logical fallacy}}
+
{{wikipedia}}
A '''logical fallacy''' can be any one of a number of formal or informal mistakes in a deductive proof.
+
A '''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:
 
Note that an argument can be fallacious but still correct.  For instance:
 
 
# All fish live in the water.
 
# All fish live in the water.
 
# All trout live in the water.
 
# All trout live in the water.
 
# Therefore all trout are fish.
 
# 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."
+
The [[premise]]s are [[true]] and the conclusion is true, 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" (of course, whales are mammals not fish).
 
+
Likewise, an argument can be logically valid but still wrong.
+
  
 +
Likewise, an argument can be logically [[valid]] but still wrong:
 
# All bugs are insects.
 
# All bugs are insects.
 
# All spiders are bugs.
 
# All spiders are bugs.
 
# Therefore, all spiders are insects.
 
# 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.  Validity and soundness are also discussed in the relevant [[validity vs. soundness|article]].
+
One of the premises is factually incorrect (which one depends on your definition of the word ''bug'') and the conclusion is also untrue.  However, the conclusion is an accurate deduction based on these premises.  Validity and soundness are also discussed in the article [[Validity vs. soundness]].
  
For examples of logical fallacies, visit the logical fallacies category.
+
For examples of logical fallacies, visit the [[:Category:Logical fallacies|logical fallacies category]].
  
==External Links==
+
==External links==
 
[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html Logic & Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument] at [[The Secular Web]]
 
[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html Logic & Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument] at [[The Secular Web]]
  
 
[[Category:Logical fallacies|*]]
 
[[Category:Logical fallacies|*]]
 
[[Category:Logic]]
 
[[Category:Logic]]

Revision as of 03:08, 30 September 2006

Wikipedia-logo-en.png
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

A 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 true and the conclusion is true, 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" (of course, whales are mammals not 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.

One of the premises is factually incorrect (which one depends on your definition of the word bug) and the conclusion is also untrue. However, the conclusion is an accurate deduction based on these premises. Validity and soundness are also discussed in the article Validity vs. soundness.

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