Logical Fallacy Pattern
A Logical Fallacy Pattern is a logic argument pattern that always leads to a fallacious argument.
- Context:
- It can (typically) contain True Premises.
- ...
- Example(s):
- a Ad hominem Argument Pattern.
- a Ad populum Argument Pattern/Appeal to the People.
- an Appeal to Authority Pattern.
- a Slippery Slope Argument Pattern.
- a False Cause Fallacy Pattern.
- a Begging the Question Fallacy Pattern (circular reasoning).
- a Fallacy of Composition Pattern/Fallacy of Division Pattern.
- a Fallacy of Ambiguity Pattern.
- a Many/Any Fallacy Pattern.
- a Conjunction Bias?
- ...
- Counter-Example(s):
- See: Tautology, Logic Argument.
References
2013
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
- In philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that is always wrong. This is due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form, but be false due to the characteristics of its premises, or its justification structure.
The term fallacy is often used generally to mean an argument that is problematic for any reason, whether it is formal or informal.
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument, but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.
"Fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments." Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also exploit the emotional, intellectual, or psychological weaknesses of the audience. Having the capability to recognize fallacies in arguments is one way to reduce the likelihood of such occurrences.
A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve their disagreements. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction and violations of these rules are fallacies.
Such fallacies are used in many forms of modern communications where the intention is to influence behavior and change beliefs. Examples in the mass media today include but are not limited to propaganda, advertisements, politics, newspaper editorials and opinion-based “news” shows.
- In philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that is always wrong. This is due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form, but be false due to the characteristics of its premises, or its justification structure.