Enhance Your Learning with Philosophy - Informal Logic Flash Cards for quick revision
The study of reasoning and argumentation in everyday language, focusing on the evaluation of arguments and the identification of logical fallacies.
Errors in reasoning that undermine the validity or soundness of an argument, such as ad hominem, straw man, and false cause fallacies.
The process of examining and evaluating arguments, including identifying premises, conclusions, and assessing their logical structure and validity.
A form of reasoning that involves making generalizations or predictions based on specific observations or evidence, often used in scientific and empirical contexts.
A form of reasoning that involves drawing specific conclusions from general principles or premises, often used in mathematics and formal logic.
Reasoning that seeks to establish a cause-effect relationship between events or phenomena, often used in scientific and philosophical investigations.
Reasoning that involves drawing comparisons between similar situations or cases to make inferences or predictions, often used in legal and ethical reasoning.
The ability to objectively analyze and evaluate arguments and evidence, while avoiding biases and logical fallacies, to arrive at well-reasoned conclusions.
Techniques used to enhance the effectiveness and persuasiveness of communication, such as repetition, rhetorical questions, and emotional appeals.
Strategies employed to influence or convince others, including logical appeals, emotional appeals, and appeals to authority or credibility.
The tendency to seek, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while ignoring or discounting contradictory evidence.
A fallacy that involves diverting attention from the main issue or argument by introducing irrelevant or unrelated information or arguments.
A fallacy that involves misrepresenting or distorting an opponent's argument or position in order to make it easier to attack or refute.
A fallacy that involves attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself, often by questioning their character, motives, or qualifications.
A fallacy that involves assuming a causal relationship between two events or phenomena based on mere correlation or coincidence, without sufficient evidence.
A fallacy that involves relying on the opinion or testimony of an authority figure or expert, without critically evaluating the evidence or arguments presented.
A fallacy that involves using emotional appeals, such as fear, pity, or sympathy, to manipulate or persuade others, rather than relying on logical reasoning or evidence.
A fallacy that involves arguing that a claim is true or false based on the absence of evidence or proof, rather than providing positive evidence or logical reasoning.
A fallacy that involves assuming the truth of the conclusion in the premises or arguments, thereby circularly reasoning and failing to provide valid support.
A fallacy that involves drawing a general conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence, often resulting in stereotypes or overgeneralizations.
A fallacy that involves asserting that a particular action or event will inevitably lead to a series of increasingly dire or extreme consequences, without sufficient evidence.
A fallacy that involves arguing that something is true or better simply because it has been done or believed for a long time, without providing valid reasons or evidence.
A fallacy that involves arguing that something is true or correct because it is popular or widely accepted, without considering the validity or soundness of the argument itself.
A fallacy that involves using fear or the threat of negative consequences to manipulate or persuade others, rather than relying on logical reasoning or evidence.
A fallacy that involves using pity or sympathy to manipulate or persuade others, rather than relying on logical reasoning or evidence.
A fallacy that involves mocking or ridiculing an opponent's argument or position, rather than engaging in substantive debate or providing valid counterarguments.
A fallacy that involves arguing that a claim is true or false based on the positive or negative consequences that would result, rather than providing valid evidence or logical reasoning.
A fallacy that involves arguing that something is good or desirable because it is natural, without considering the validity or soundness of the argument itself.
A fallacy that involves arguing that something is true or better simply because it is new or modern, without providing valid reasons or evidence.
A fallacy that involves arguing that something is false or impossible because one personally finds it difficult to understand or believe, without providing valid evidence or logical reasoning.
A fallacy that involves relying on one's own personal experience or anecdotes as evidence or proof, without considering the limitations or biases of individual experiences.
A fallacy that involves relying on the opinion or testimony of someone who is not a legitimate authority or expert in the relevant field, without critically evaluating their credentials or expertise.
A fallacy that involves assuming that a particular belief or opinion is widely held or accepted, without sufficient evidence or consideration of alternative viewpoints.
A fallacy that involves presenting a limited or false choice between two options, ignoring or excluding other possible alternatives or nuances.
A fallacy that involves asserting a causal relationship between two events or phenomena based on mere correlation or coincidence, without sufficient evidence or logical reasoning.
A fallacy that involves drawing an invalid or misleading comparison between two situations or cases, often based on superficial similarities while ignoring relevant differences.
A fallacy that involves arguing that a particular belief or action is consistent with one's previous beliefs or actions, without critically evaluating their validity or soundness.
A fallacy that involves asserting an equal or equivalent value or significance between two things or situations that are not truly comparable or analogous.
A fallacy that involves relying on one's own intuition or gut feeling as evidence or proof, without considering the limitations or biases of individual intuitions.
A fallacy that involves relying on one's own memory or recollection as evidence or proof, without considering the limitations or biases of individual memories.
A fallacy that involves arguing that a particular belief or action is justified or correct because it has been done or accepted in the past, without critically evaluating its validity or soundness.
A fallacy that involves relying on the opinion or testimony of someone who is not a credible or reliable source, without critically evaluating their trustworthiness or veracity.
A fallacy that involves arguing that something is true or better simply because it has been done or believed for a long time, without providing valid reasons or evidence.