Informal fallacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support their proposed conclusion.[1] The deviation in an informal fallacy often stems from a flaw in the path of reasoning that links the premises to the conclusion. In contrast to a formal fallacy, the error has to do with issues of ratiocination manifest in language used to state the propositions; the range of elements that can be symbolized by language is broader than that which the symbolism of formal logic can represent.

Contents

[edit] Deductive and inductive informal fallacies

Informal fallacies of deductive reasoning contain a fundamental disconnect between the premises and the conclusion that renders the argument invalid. This disconnect often stems from the presence of a hidden co-premise that, if presented, would validate the argument.

Inductive informal fallacies are slightly different from their deductive counterparts, as their merit rests in the inductive strength of the premise-conclusion link rather than in the presence of hidden premises. For instance, the fallacy of hasty generalization, can be roughly stated as:

p) A is an X
p) A is also a Y
c) therefore, all Xs are also Ys

If the populations of X and Y are both too large to sample completely, then the statement is inductive. In such a case, a hasty generalization occurs when the number of Xs and Ys is insufficient to represent the respective populations. It is important to distinguish between a principle of reasoning (deductive or inductive) and the premise of an argument.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Kelley, D. (1994) The Art of Reasoning. W W Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-393-96466-3

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links


Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages