Tautology Wiki
Edit Page

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
Section to be merged with [[Logical fallacies]].
 
=== tiktaalik ===
 
Section to be merged with [[Logical fallacies]].
 
   
 
If the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik Tiktaalik] fossil had no kids, how could he be the ancestor of anybody?
 
If the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik Tiktaalik] fossil had no kids, how could he be the ancestor of anybody?
Line 7: Line 5:
 
* We don't know where the organism died , it could have died 500miles away and was fossilized in a huge flood somewhere else.
 
* We don't know where the organism died , it could have died 500miles away and was fossilized in a huge flood somewhere else.
 
* We have no written records older than 5000 years.(''check this pending'')
 
* We have no written records older than 5000 years.(''check this pending'')
 
=== circularity ===
 
http://www.numeraire.com/download/WhatIsCircularReasoning.pdf
 
 
 
Robert D. Coleman, PhD © 2006 rcoleman@mba1971.hbs.edu
 
1
 
What Is Circular Reasoning?
 
Logical fallacies are a type of error in r
 
easoning, errors which
 
may be recognized and
 
corrected by observant thinkers. There are a
 
large number of informal
 
fallacies that are
 
cataloged, and some have multiple names. The frequency of occurrence is one way to
 
rank the fallacies. The ten most-frequent
 
fallacies probably cover the overwhelming
 
majority of illogical reasoning. With a Pareto
 
effect, 20% of the major fallacies might
 
account for 80% of fa
 
llacious reasoning.
 
One of the more common fallacies is circul
 
ar reasoning, a form of which was called
 
“begging the question” by Aristotl
 
e in his book that named the fa
 
llacies of classical logic.
 
The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs
 
when the conclusion of an argument is
 
essentially the same as one of the premises
 
in the argument. Circular reasoning is an
 
inference drawn from a premise that incl
 
udes the conclusion, and used to prove the
 
conclusion. Definitions of words are circul
 
ar reasoning, but they are not inference.
 
Inference is the deriving of a conclusion in
 
logic by either induction or deduction.
 
Circular reasoning can be quite
 
subtle, can be obfuscated when intentional, and thus can
 
be difficult to detect.
 
Circular reasoning as a fallacy refers to reas
 
oning in vicious circle
 
s or vicious circular
 
reasoning, in contrast to reas
 
oning in virtuous circles or
 
virtuous circular reasoning.
 
Virtuous circular reasoning is sometimes used
 
for pedagogical purposes, such as in math
 
to show that two different statements are eq
 
uivalent expressions of the same thing. In a
 
logical argument, viciously circular reasoni
 
ng occurs when one attempts to infer a
 
conclusion that is based upon a premise that
 
ultimately contains
 
the conclusion itself.
 
Why is vicious circular reasoning unacceptabl
 
e and fatal? Genuine method proceeds from
 
the known to the unknown. Vicious circular
 
reasoning proceeds from the known to the
 
equally known. Vicious circul
 
ar reasoning, therefore, viol
 
ates genuine method. Vicious
 
circular reasoning does not a
 
dd anything new, it does not advance learning, and it does
 
not add to knowledge. Vicious circular re
 
asoning goes nowhere and leads nowhere --
 
hence, its descriptive name “circular”. It
 
literally moves in a circuit or a circle.
 
Most people do not study logica
 
l fallacies as part of their formal education. Those who
 
study them typically do so as part of a course
 
in logic, maybe calle
 
d critical thinking, in
 
the philosophy department. The rest of us have
 
to learn about them on our own in order to
 
make and detect sound arguments. Note that
 
the word argument applies to all reasoning
 
regardless of form, and thus it includes
 
hypotheses, models, arguments and studies.
 
Here are the citations for a classical te
 
xt and for a modern text about logic.
 
Prior Analytics and Topics
 
, Aristotle
 
The Logic of Real Arguments
 
, Alec Fisher, Second Edition, 2004, Cambridge
 
University Press.
 
Robert D. Coleman, PhD © 2006 rcoleman@mba1971.hbs.edu
 
2
 
The following is a list of Internet sites with
 
information about the fallacies of informal
 
logic including the fallacy of circular reas
 
oning, begging the question, or petitio principii.
 
http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us
 
/longview/CTAC/fallacy.htm
 
Critical Thinking Across the Curric
 
ulum Project: Informal Fallacies
 
Table of Contents (17 Fallacies)
 
Fallacies of Deception:
 
Fallacies of Distraction:
 
Fallacies involving Counterfeit:
 
False Dilemma
 
Affirming the Consequent
 
Slippery Slope
 
Denying the Antecedent
 
Straw Man
 
Equivocation
 
Begging the Question
 
or Circularity
 
Fallacies which use Emotion or Motive in place of Support
 
:
 
Appeal to Pity
 
Appeal to Authority
 
Appeals to Tradition
 
Prejudicial Language
 
Appeal to Force
 
Appeal to Mass Opinion
 
Fallacies which employ both (Double Trouble):
 
Ad Hominem - Abusive
 
Ad Hominem - Ridicule
 
Ad Hominem - Circumstantial
 
Tu Quoque - Two wrongs
 
http://www.ramdac.org/fallacies.php
 
Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, 1995, Dr. Mich
 
ael C. Labossiere (42 fallacies)
 
Introduction. Description of Fallacies.
 
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one
 
must understand what an argument is. Very
 
briefly, an argument consists of one or more
 
premises and one conclusion. A premise is a
 
statement (a sentence that is either true or
 
false) that is offered in support of the claim
 
being made, which is the conclusion
 
(which is also a sentence that
 
is either true or false).
 
There are two main types of arguments:
 
deductive and inductive. A deductive argument
 
is an argument such that the premises provide
 
(or appear to provide) complete support for
 
the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argu
 
ment such that the premises provide (or
 
appear to provide) some degree of support (b
 
ut less than complete support) for the
 
conclusion. If the premises actually provide
 
the required degree of support for the
 
conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a
 
valid argument and is such that if all its pr
 
emises are true, then its conclusion must be
 
true. If all the argument is va
 
lid and actually has all true
 
premises, then it is known as a
 
sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or
 
more false premises, it will be unsound. A
 
Robert D. Coleman, PhD © 2006 rcoleman@mba1971.hbs.edu
 
3
 
good inductive argument is known as a strong (o
 
r "cogent") inductive
 
argument. It is
 
such that if the premises are true,
 
the conclusion is likely to be true.
 
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoni
 
ng. This differs from a factual error, which
 
is simply being wrong about the facts. To be mo
 
re specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in
 
which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.
 
A deductive fallacy is a deductive ar
 
gument that is invalid (it is
 
such that it could have all
 
true premises and still have a
 
false conclusion). An inductive
 
fallacy is less formal than a
 
deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments
 
" which appear to be inductive arguments,
 
but the premises do not provided enough suppor
 
t for the conclusion. In such cases, even
 
if the premises were true, the conclusion
 
would not be more likely to be true.
 
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
 
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (164 fallacies)
 
A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. Th
 
e alphabetical list be
 
low contains 164 names
 
of the most common fallacies, and it provide
 
s explanations and examples of each of
 
them. Fallacies should not be persuasive, but
 
they often are. Fallacies may be created
 
unintentionally, or they may be
 
created intentionally in order to deceive other people. The
 
vast majority of the commonly identified
 
fallacies involve argu
 
ments, although some
 
involve explanations, or definitions, or othe
 
r products of reasoning. Sometimes the term
 
"fallacy" is used even more broadly to indicate
 
any false belief or cause of a false belief.
 
The list below includes some fallacies of this
 
sort, but most are fallacies that involve
 
kinds of errors made while argui
 
ng informally in natural language.
 
The discussion that precedes th
 
e list begins with an account of
 
the ways in which the term
 
"fallacy" is vague. Attention then turns to
 
the number of competing and overlapping
 
ways to classify fallacies of argumentation.
 
For pedagogical purposes, researchers in the
 
field of fallacies disagree about the followi
 
ng topics: which name of a fallacy is more
 
helpful to students' understanding; whether so
 
me fallacies should be de-emphasized in
 
favor of others; and which is the best taxonomy
 
of the fallacies. Researchers in the field
 
are also deeply divided about
 
how to define the term "falla
 
cy," how to define certain
 
fallacies, and whether any general theory of
 
fallacies at all should
 
be pursued if that
 
theory's goal is to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for distinguishing between
 
fallacious and non-fallacious reas
 
oning generally. Anal
 
ogously, there is doubt in the field
 
of ethics regarding whether researchers s
 
hould pursue the goal of providing necessary
 
and sufficient conditions for distinguishing moral actions from immoral ones.
 
Introduction
 
The first known systematic study of fa
 
llacies was due to Aristotle in his
 
De Sophisticis
 
Elenchis
 
(Sophistical Refutations
 
), an appendix to the
 
Topics
 
. He listed thirteen types.
 
After the Dark Ages, fallacies were again st
 
udied systematically in Medieval Europe.
 
This is why so many fallacies have Latin na
 
mes. The third major period of study of the
 
fallacies began in the later twentieth century
 
due to renewed interest
 
from the disciplines
 
Robert D. Coleman, PhD © 2006 rcoleman@mba1971.hbs.edu
 
4
 
of philosophy, logic, communication studies
 
, rhetoric, psychology, and artificial
 
intelligence.
 
The term "fallacy" is not a pr
 
ecise term. One reason is that
 
it is ambiguous. It can refer
 
either to (a) a kind of error in an argume
 
nt, (b) a kind of error in reasoning (including
 
arguments, definitions, explanations, etc.), (c) a
 
false belief, or (d) the cause of any of the
 
previous errors including what are norma
 
lly referred to as "rhetorical techniques".
 
Philosophers who are researcher
 
s in fallacy theory prefer
 
to emphasize meaning (a), but
 
their lead is often not followed in
 
textbooks and public discussion.
 
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/
 
Informal_Fallacies/Informal_Fallacies.html
 
Informal Fallacies (71 fallacies in 11 categories)
 
You simply cannot properly begin to properly
 
read the various texts without first being
 
grounded in the basics of clear thinking. By
 
familiarizing yourself with these forms of
 
reasoning you may guard yourself from making th
 
e same sorts of errors (as well as to
 
catch errors in the thinking
 
of others who purport to be
 
speaking the truth). A brief
 
introduction of the subject included.
 
An informal fallacy is an attempt to persuade
 
that obviously fails to
 
demonstrate the truth
 
of its conclusion, deriving its
 
only plausibility from a misuse
 
of ordinary language. Most
 
scholars categorize informal fallacies as: (1)
 
fallacies of relevance
 
: appeal to ignorance,
 
appeal to authority, ad hominem arguments,
 
appeals to emotion, force, etc., irrelevant
 
conclusions, and appeals to pity; (2)
 
fallacies of presumption
 
: accident, converse
 
accident, false cause, begging the qu
 
estion, and complex question; (3)
 
fallacies of
 
ambiguity
 
: equivocation, amphiboly, accent,
 
composition, and division.
 
http://www.datanati
 
on.com/fallacies/
 
Stephen’s Guide to the Logi
 
cal Fallacies (53 fallacies)
 
http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/
 
Adam Smith Institute Logical Fallacies (76 fall
 
acies, incuding Petito Principii, Circulus
 
in Probando, and Blinding with Science)
 
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Overview.html
 
A Database of Informal Fallacies
 
, 1987, Dr. Charles Ess (28 fallacies)
 
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
 
Logical Fallacies and the Art
 
of Debate (21 fallacies, in
 
cluding Petitio Principii and
 
Circulus in Demonstrando)
 
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
 
and
 
http://www.fallacyfile
 
s.org/begquest.html
 
The Fallacy Files (155 fallacies, including
 
Circular Argument,
 
Circulus in Probando,
 
Petitio Principii, Question-
 
Begging, and Vicious Circle)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
 
Wikipedia: Logical fallacy (111 falla
 
cies, including Begging the Question)
 
Robert D. Coleman, PhD © 2006 rcoleman@mba1971.hbs.edu
 
5
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
 
Wikipedia: Circular reasoning
 
In
 
logic
 
,
 
begging the question
 
is the term for a type of
 
fallacy
 
occurring in
 
deductive
 
reasoning
 
in which the
 
proposition
 
to be
 
proved
 
is assumed implicitly
 
or explicitly in one
 
of the
 
premises
 
. For an example of this, cons
 
ider the following argument: "
 
Only an
 
untrustworthy person would run for office. The
 
fact that politicians are untrustworthy is
 
proof of this.
 
" Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own
 
proposition—in this case, "politicians are
 
untrustworthy"—in order
 
to support its central
 
premise. Essentially, the argument assumes th
 
at its central point is already proven, and
 
uses this in support of itself.
 
Begging the question is also known by its Latin name
 
petitio principii
 
and is related to
 
the fallacy known as
 
circular argument
 
,
 
circulus in probando
 
,
 
vicious circle
 
or
 
circular
 
reasoning
 
. As a concept in
 
logic
 
the first known definition in the West is by the
 
Greek
 
philosopher
 
Aristotle
 
around
 
350 B.C.
 
, in his book
 
Prior Analytics
 
, where he classified it
 
as a
 
material fallacy
 
.
 
The term is usually not used to
 
describe the broader fallacy th
 
at occurs when the evidence
 
given for a proposition is as much in need
 
of proof as the proposition itself. The more
 
accepted classification for such arguments is as a
 
fallacy of many questions
 
.
 
See
 
modern usage controversy
 
, below, over a common usage of "begs the question" with
 
the meaning "raises the question".
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Causal_fallacies
 
Wikipedia: Causal fallacies
 
This category is for
 
questionable cause
 
fallacies, arguments where a cause is incorrectly
 
identified.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Informal_fallacies
 
Wikipedia: Informal fallacies
 
This category is for arguments that are fa
 
llacious for reasons ot
 
her than structural
 
("formal") flaws, such as due to ambigu
 
ity or a common error in their premises.
 
 
 
 
 
[[Category:TauTology]]
 
[[Category:TauTology]]
 
[[Category:Circularity]]
 
[[Category:Circularity]]

Please note that all contributions to the Tautology Wiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)