Date of publication: 2017-08-27 15:14
The Subjectivist Fallacy occurs when it is mistakenly supposed that a good reason to reject a claim is that truth on the matter is relative to the person or group.
This kind of reasoning is generally fallacious. It would be proper reasoning only if the proof attempts were quite thorough, and it were the case that, if the being or object were to exist, then there would be a discoverable proof of this. Another common example of the fallacy involves ignorance of a future event: You people have been complaining about the danger of Xs ever since they were invented, but there's never been any big problem with Xs, so there's nothing to worry about.
Whatever your reasons are for buying that gift, they've got to be ridiculous. You said yourself that you got the idea for buying it from last night's fortune cookie. Cookies can't think!
People should keep their promises, right? I loaned Dwayne my knife, and he said he'd return it. Now he is refusing to give it back, but I need it right now to slash up my neighbors who disrespected me.
Any fallacy that turns on ambiguity. See the fallacies of Amphiboly , Accent , and Equivocation. Amphiboly is ambiguity of syntax. Equivocation is ambiguity of semantics. Accent is ambiguity of emphasis.
Formal fallacies are all the cases or kinds of reasoning that fail to be deductively valid. Formal fallacies are also called Logical Fallacies or I nvalidities.
Some people try to win their arguments by getting you to accept their faulty definition. If you buy into their definition, they've practically persuaded you already. Same as the Definist Fallacy. Poisoning the Well when presenting a definition would be an example of a using persuasive definition.
Psychic Sarah makes twenty-six predictions about what will happen next year. When one, but only one, of the predictions comes true, she says, "Aha! I can see into the future."
Suppose we notice that an event of kind A is followed in time by an event of kind B, and then hastily leap to the conclusion that A caused B. If so, our reasoning contains the Post Hoc Fallacy. Correlations are often good evidence of causal connection, so the fallacy occurs only when the leap to the causal conclusion is done "hastily." The Latin term for the fallacy is Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc ("After this, therefore because of this"). It is a kind of False Cause Fallacy.
This is fallacious reasoning by the speaker because whether the speaker should vote for Anderson ought to depend on Anderson’s qualifications, not on whether Samantha will or won’t get a nice job if he’s elected.
Don't panic when your instructor tells you that you need to write an analysis! All he or she wants is for you to take something apart to see HOW it works.
This is the error of treating modal conditionals as if the modality applies only to the then-part of the conditional when it more properly applies to the entire conditional.