Term
|
Definition
A DEDUCTIVELY VALID ARGUMENT HAVING THE FOLLOWING FORM.
1. IF A THEN B.
2. A.
3. ;. B. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
DEDUCTIVELY VALID ARGUMENT HAVING THE
1. IF A THEN B
2. NOT B
3. .:NOT A
EXSAMPLE:
1. IF ITS SPRING, THEN THE BIRDS ARE CHIRPING.
2. THE BIRS AREN'T CHIRPING
3. IT ISN'T SPRING |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
DEDUCTIVELY VALID ARGUMENT FORM
1. IF A THEN B
2. IF B THEN C
3. .: IF A THEN C.
EXAMPLE:
1. IF WE SUCCESSFULLY DEVELOP N F POWER, THEN POWER WILL BECOME CHEAP AND EASY TO GET
2. IF POWER BECOMES CHEAP AND EASY TO GET, THEN THE ECONOMY WILL FLOURISH
3. IF WE SUCCESSFULLY DEVELOP NUCLEAR FUSION POWER, THEN THE ECONOMY WILL FLOURISH |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A DEDUCTIVELY VALID FORM HAVING THE FOLLOWING FORM
1. A OR B
2. NOT A
3. .: B
EXSAMPLE:
1. EITHER CLINTON WON IN 2012 OR OBAMA DID.
2. OBAMA DIDN'T WIN
3. HILLARY DID |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
ANY ARGUMENT THAT DOESNT HAVE A DEDUCTIVELY VALID FORM.
REMEMBER VALID DEDUCTIVE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT GUARANTEES THAT IF ALL ITS PREMISES ARE TRUE, THEN ITS CONCLUSION ALSO MUST BE TRUE, STATED IN PREMISES OR IMPLIED. SO INVALID WOULD BE OPPOSITE. |
|
|
Term
DEDUCTIVE INVALIDITY
FALLACY OF DENYING THE ANTECEDENT: |
|
Definition
1. IF A THEN B.
2. NOT A.
3. NOT B.
EXSAMPLE
1. IF ABORTION IS MURDER AND THEN ITS WRONG
2. BUT ABORTION ISNT MURDER
3. ABORTION ISNT WRONG
THEREFORE THE CONCLUSION WILL NOT FOLLOW OR DOES NOT FOLLOW. |
|
|
Term
DEDUCTIVE INVALIDITY
FALLACY OF AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT: |
|
Definition
1. IF A THEN B.
2. B
3. .: A.
EXAMPLE
1. IF OBAMA IS POTUS, THEN A LIBERAL IS NOW POTUS.
2. A LIBERAL IS NOW PRESIDENT
3. OBAMA IS PRESIDENT
{POTUS} PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
DEDUCTIBELY VALID REASONINGS
BELOW IS THE CORRECT FORM
1. ALL A's ARE B's
2. ALL B's ARE C's
3. ALL A's ARE C's
CATERGORICAL PROPOSITION IS A SUBJECT- PREDICATE PROPOSITION THAT ASSERTS OR DENIES A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A SUJECT CLASS AND A PREDICATE CLASS |
|
|
Term
| HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM ARGUMENTS |
|
Definition
1. IF A THEN B
2. IF B THEN C
3. .: IF A THEN C
ARE NOT TRUE SYLLOGISM
BELOW IS THE CORRECT FORM HOWEVER
1. ALL A's ARE B's
2. ALL B's ARE C's
3. ALL A's ARE C's |
|
|
Term
| FOUR KINDS OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS WITH (ONE VARIATION) |
|
Definition
UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE
( A PROPOSITIONS )
HAVING THE FORM ALL S's AND ALL P's
EX> "ALL SINNERS ARE BETRAYERS"
UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE
(E PROPOSITIONS) HAVING THE FORM "NO S ARE P
EX> NO CHESS PLAYERS ARE IMBECILES
PARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVE
(I PROPOSITIONS) HAVING THE FORM "SOME S ARE P"
EX>SOME MEN ARE CHAUVINISTS
PARTICULAR NEGATIVE (O PROPOSITIONS)HAVING THE FORM SOME S ARE NOT P
EX> "SOME LOGICIANS ARE NOT NITPICKERS" HAVING A PATICULAR ITEM RATHER THAN A CLASS OF ITEMS ARE OFTEN HONORIFICALLY CONSIDERED TO BE A PROPOSITIONS |
|
|
Term
| A DEDUCTIVELY INVALID ARGUMENT STILL MAY BE A GOOD ARGUMENT IF |
|
Definition
| IT IS INDUCTIVELY CORRECT |
|
|
Term
SYLLOGISM
TRADITIONAL SYMBOLIZATION |
|
Definition
ALL HUMANS ARE MORTAL
ALL GREEKS ARE HUMAN
.:ALL GREES ARE MORTAL
MAP
SAM
.: SAP |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| THE TERM P, THE PREDICATE OF THE CONCLUSION, IS SAID TO BE THE SYLLOGISM'S MAJOR TERM |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| THE TERM S, THE SUBJECT OF THE CONCLUSION, ITS MINOR TERM |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| THE TERM M, WHICH OCCURS ONCE IN EACH PREMISE BUT NOT IN THE CONCLUSION IS ITS MIDDLE TERM. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| EVERY SYLLOGISM HAS EXACTLY THREE TERMS ( NONE USED EQUIVOCALLY), EACH ONE REPEATED TWICE BUT NOT IN THE SAME PROPOSITION. |
|
|
Term
| STRAW MAN (BROAD FALLACY) |
|
Definition
BROAD CATEGORY "SUPRESSED EVIDENCE" WHICH IS COMMITTED WHEN WE MISREPRESENT AN OPPONENTS POSITION, OR COMPETITORS PRODUCT, OR GO AFTER A WEAKER OPPONET OR COMPETITOR WHILE IGNORING A STRONGER ONE.
STOCK AND TRADE OF ADVERTISERS. |
|
|
Term
FALSE DILEMA EITHER- OR FALLACY
EITHER-OR FALLACY AKA SOMETIMES CALLED THE BLACK OR WHITE
EITHER P OR Q.
NOT P.
THEREFORE Q. |
|
Definition
A DILEMMA IS AN ARGUMENT THAT PRESENTS TWO ALTERNATIVES, BOTH CLAIMED TO BE BAD OR SOMEONE, OR SOME POSITIONS
EITHER P OR Q.
IF P THEN R. IF Q THEN S.
THEREFORE, EITHER R OR S. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| TO BEG MEANS "TO AVOID"THE FALLACY OF BEGGING THE QUESTION USUALLY FALLS INTO THE BROAD CATEGORY QUESTIONABLE PREMISE BECAUSE A STATEMENT THAT IS QUESTIONABLE AS A CONCLUSIONS IS EQUALLY QUESTIONABLE AS A PREMISE, THIS FALLACY RARELY IF EVER, HAS THE FORM A. THEREFORE A. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| AVOID ENTIRELY. ONE FAILS TO NOTICES THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN EVADED, HOODWINKED.DODGED. |
|
|
Term
QUSTIONABLE PREMISE
KNOWING FOR A FACT THAT STATEMENT IS FALSE OBLVIOULSY IS A VERY GOOD REASON FOR NOT ONLY QUESTIONING IT BUT DISMISSING IT ALL TOGETHER. |
|
Definition
| KNOWING THAT A STATMENT IS FALSE IS A VERY GOOD REASON FOR QUESTIONING IT. SPOTED IN AN ARGUMENT AND NONE OF THESE MORE SPECIFIC LABELS APPLY THEN THE FALLBACK IS QUESTIONABLE PREMISE. |
|
|
Term
SUPPRESSED (OVERLOOKED) EVIDENCE
GENERAL FALLACY IN CATEGORY OF QUESTIONABLE, PREMISE, INVALID INFERENCE, THEORIST TEND TO SEE THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE AS AN ERROR IN REASONING |
|
Definition
| SUPRESSED - OVERLOOKED, SLIGHTED, INADVERTANLY,PASSED OVER, TEND TO NEGLECT DUE TO BE COMMITTED TO OTHER SIDE OF ARGUMENT. |
|
|
Term
AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT
IS LITERELY, AN ARGUMENT TO THE PERSON! |
|
Definition
| ATTACKING HIS OPPONENT RATHER THAN HIS OPPONENTS EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
STRAW MAN ATTACKS THE OPPONENT MISREPRESENTS AN OPPONET POSTIONS WHEREAS AN
AD HOMONIMS ABUSE AN OPPONENT DIRECTLY |
|
|
Term
| IRRELEVANT REASON AKA (NON SEQUITUR) |
|
Definition
| DESCRIBED AS BEING COMMITTED WHEN A CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW LOGICALLY FROM GIVEN PREMIS. |
|
|
Term
EQUIVOCATION
COMMON FALLACY |
|
Definition
| A TERM OR EXPRESSION IS USED EQUIVOCALLY IN AN ARUGMENT WHEN USED TO MEAN ONE THING IN ONE PLACE AND ANOTHER THING IN ANOTHER. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| IS A TYPE OF UNCERTAINTY OF MEANING IN WHICH SEVERAL INTERPRETATIONS ARE PLAUSIBLE. USED IN BIBLE. CAN BE GOOD OR BAD |
|
|
Term
ARGUMENTUN AD IGNORANTIAM
APPEAL TO IGNORANCE |
|
Definition
| GOOD REASONS ARE LACKING, WE GREATLY DESIRE TO BELIEVE SOMETHING IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. CAUSING US TO BE GULITY OF A FALLACY. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| SALEMANS FALLACY, CONSUMERS FALLACY IS COMMITTED WHEN SOMEONE ASSUMES THAT A PARTICULAR ITEM MUST HAVE A CERTAIN PROPERTY BECAUSE ALL OF ITS PARTS HAVE THAT PROPERTY |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| IS COMMITTED WHEN WE ASSUME THAT ALL OR SOME OF THE PARTS OF AN ITEM HAVE A PARTICULAR PROPERTY BECAUSE THE ITEM AS A WHOLE HAS IT. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| AN ACTION IS OBJECTED TO ON THE GROUNDS THAT ONCE IT IS TAKEN, ANOTHER ACTION AND THEN PERHAPS STILL ANOTHER IS BOUND TO BE TAKEN UNTIL AN UNDESIRED CONSEQUENCE RESULTS. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| JUSTIFYING A WRONG BY POINTING TO A SIMILAR WRONG PERPETRATED BY OTHERS. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| BEING JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
