1547:
include informal fallacy by replacing this condition with a more general term, like logical weakness or incorrect reasoning. The last clause includes a psychological element in referring to how the argument appears to the arguer. This clause is used to distinguish genuine fallacies from mere mistakes in reasoning, for example, due to carelessness. The idea is that fallacies have an alluring element that goes beyond mere carelessness by seducing us into committing the mistake, thereby explaining why they are committed in the first place. Some philosophers reject this appeal to appearances because the reference to psychology would complicate the investigation in various ways. One issue is that appearances are different for different people. This problem also involves social sciences in order to determine which reference group of people to consult for defining fallacies. It has been suggested that, at its core, the study of fallacies is about normative aspects of arguments and not about their persuasive force, which is studied by empirical psychology instead.
1682:, who hold that deductive invalidity is the reason for all fallacies. One way to explain that some fallacies do not seem to be deductively invalid is to hold that they contain various hidden assumptions, as is common for natural language arguments. The idea is that apparent informal fallacies can be turned into formal fallacies by making all these assumptions explicit and thereby revealing the deductive invalidity. The claim that this is possible for all fallacies is not generally accepted. One requirement for a formal treatment is translating the arguments in question into the language of formal logic, a process known as "formalization". Often many of the subtleties of natural language have to be ignored in this process. Some bodies of knowledge can be formalized without much residue but others resist formalization. This is also true for many informal fallacies.
1675:. Part of the difficulty in analyzing informal fallacies is due to the fact that their structure is not always clearly expressed in natural language. Sometimes certain keywords like "because", "therefore", "since" or "consequently" indicate which parts of the expression constitute the premises and which part the conclusion. But other times this distinction remains implicit and it is not always obvious which parts should be identified as the premises and the conclusions. Many informal arguments include enthymematic premises: premises that are not explicitly stated but tacitly presumed. In some domestic quarrels and political debates, it is not clear from the outset what the two parties are arguing about and which theses they intend to defend. Sometimes the function of the debate is more to clarify these preliminary points than to advance actual arguments.
1543:
premises. Deductively valid arguments offer the strongest form of support: for them, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if all the premises are true. The premises in non-deductive arguments offer a certain degree of support for their conclusion but they are defeasible: it is possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Defeasible arguments may still be rationally compelling despite being fallible, so they do not automatically constitute fallacies. The premises of an argument may be seen as the foundation on which the conclusion is built. According to this analogy, two things can go wrong and turn an argument into a fallacy. It could be that the foundation is shaky. But even a solid foundation is not helpful if it does not provide support for the conclusion in question.
1768:, i.e. as the degree of certainty of the believer that the believed proposition is true. On this view, reasoning based on an argument can be interpreted as a process of changing one's degrees of belief, usually in response to new incoming information. Fallacies are probabilistically weak arguments, i.e. they have a low probability on the Bayesian model. Whether an argument constitutes a fallacy or not depends on the credences of the person evaluating the argument. This means that what constitutes a fallacy for one arguer may be a sound argument for another. This explains why, when trying to persuade someone, one should take the audience's beliefs into account. But it can also make sense of arguments independent of an audience, unlike the dialogical approach.
1718:
of persuasion". The players can perform various moves that affect what they are committed to. In this framework, arguments are moves that take the opponent's commitments as premises and lead to the conclusion one is trying to prove. Since this is often not possible directly, various intermediary steps are taken, in which each argument takes a few steps towards one's intended conclusion by proposing an intermediary conclusion for the opponent to accept. This game is governed by various rules determining, among other things, which moves are allowed and when. The dialogical approach makes it possible to distinguish between positive arguments, which support one's own conclusion, and negative arguments, which deny the opponent's conclusion.
51:
1968:, is an example of the ad hominem fallacy. But not all ad hominem arguments constitute fallacies. It is a common and reasonable practice in court, for example, to defend oneself against an accusation by casting doubt on the reliability of the witnesses. The difference between fallacious and justified ad hominem arguments depends on the relevancy of the character of the attacked person to the thesis in question. The author's cultural heritage seems to have very little relevance in most cases for theories in physics, but the reliability of a witness in court is highly relevant for whether one is justified in believing their testimony.
1696:
arguments and sees fallacies as violations of the rules of the game. According to the epistemic approach, it is the goal of arguments to expand our knowledge by providing a bridge from already justified beliefs to not yet justified beliefs. Fallacies are arguments that fall short of this goal by breaking a rule of epistemic justification. It has been suggested that there may not be one single framework for evaluating all fallacies but only a manifold of ideals according to which a given argument may be good or bad.
1733:, tries to discredit the opponent's argument by claiming that the opponent's behavior is inconsistent with the argument's conclusion. This move does not necessarily break the rules of the dialogue. Instead, it can reveal a weakness in the opponent's position by reflecting their criticism back onto them. This move shifts the burden of proof back to the opponent, thereby strengthening one's own position. But it still constitutes a fallacy if it is only used to evade an argument.
1632:, for example, involves inaccurately attributing a weak position to one's opponent and then refuting this position. The argument itself may be valid in that the refutation of the opposed position really is successful. The error is found on the level of the context since the opponent does not hold this position. This dependence on a context means that the same argument may be successful in another context: against an opponent who actually holds the strawman position.
1725:, for example, involves inaccurately attributing a weak position to one's opponent and then proving this position to lead to one's own conclusion. This mistake is not logical in the strict sense but dialogical: the conclusion may as well follow from these premises but the opponent does not hold these commitments. In some cases, it varies from game to game whether a certain move counts as a fallacy or not. For example, there are cases where the
4345:
3095:"Whataboutism" is another name for the logical fallacy of "tu quoque" (Latin for "you also"), in which an accusation is met with a counter-accusation, pivoting away from the original criticism. The strategy has been a hallmark of Soviet and post-Soviet propaganda, and some commentators have accused President Donald Trump of mimicking Mr. Putin's use of the technique.
1934:, a general rule is applied incorrectly to an exceptional case. For example, "veryone has a right to his or her property. Therefore, even though Jones had been declared insane, you had no right to take his weapon away." The generalization, in this case, ignores that insanity is an exceptional case to which the general rights of property do not unrestrictedly apply.
1814:
different topics in mind and thereby talk past each other without being aware of this. One way to avoid or solve these fallacies is to clarify language, e.g. by committing to definitions and by introducing new distinctions. Such reformulations may include a condensation of the original argument in order to make it easier to spot the erroneous step.
1498:. Informal fallacies are expressed in natural language. This brings with it various difficulties not faced when studying formal fallacies, like ambiguous terms, vague expressions or the premises being assumed implicitly rather than stated explicitly. Traditionally, a great number of informal fallacies have been listed, including the
1890:
is committed if one infers from the fact that each member of a group has a property that the group as a whole has this property. For example, "very member of the investigative team was an excellent researcher", therefore "t was an excellent investigative team". Any form of fallaciously transferring a
1717:
conception, a dialogue is a game between two players. At the outset, each player is committed to a set of propositions and has a conclusion they intend to prove. A player has won if they are able to persuade the opponent of their own conclusion. In this sense, dialogues can be characterized as "games
3201:
The way the
Kremlin has always reacted to reports about corruption or arbitrary police rule, or the state of Russia's penal institutions, is by generating similar reports about the West. Whatever the other party says the answer is always the same: 'Look who's talking.' This age-old technique, dubbed
1944:
is a form of circular reasoning in which the conclusion is already assumed in the premises. Because of this, the premises are unable to provide independent support for the conclusion. For example, the statement "Green is the best color because it is the greenest of all colors", offers no independent
1926:
is a fallacy of presumption based on a false disjunctive claim that oversimplifies reality by excluding viable alternatives. For example, a false dilemma is committed when it is claimed that "Stacey spoke out against capitalism, therefore she must be a communist". One of the options excluded is that
1788:
of informal fallacies have been discussed in academic literature. There is controversy both concerning whether a given argument really constitutes a fallacy in all of its instances and concerning how the different fallacies should be grouped together into categories. The categorization here follows
1745:
is that arguments play an epistemic role: they aim to expand our knowledge by providing a bridge from already justified beliefs to not yet justified beliefs. Fallacies are arguments that fall short of this goal by breaking a rule of epistemic justification. This explains, for example, why arguments
1986:
is another fallacy due to irrelevance. It is based on the premise that there is no proof for a certain claim. From this premise, the conclusion is drawn that this claim must therefore be false. For example, "Nobody has ever proved to me there's a God, so I know there is no God". Another version of
1775:
arguments constitute fallacies but others not. Slippery slope arguments argue against a certain proposal based on the fact that this proposal would bring with it a causal chain of events eventually leading to a bad outcome. But even if every step in this chain is relatively probable, probabilistic
1457:
The study of fallacies aims at providing an account for evaluating and criticizing arguments. This involves both a descriptive account of what constitutes an argument and a normative account of which arguments are good or bad. In philosophy, fallacies are usually seen as a form of bad argument and
1542:
Only arguments can constitute a fallacy. Various erroneous expressions do not count as fallacies because no argument is made, e.g. because no reasons are cited or no assertion is made. The core idea of arguments is that the premises support the conclusion or that the conclusion follows from the
1546:
Traditionally, fallacies have been defined by three necessary conditions: "a fallacy (i) is an argument, (ii) that is invalid, and (iii) appears to be valid." This definition covers only formal fallacy since it has deductive invalidity as a necessary condition. But it can easily be modified to
1813:
lies in the usage of language. This is due to the fact that many terms in natural language have ambiguous or vague meanings. Ambiguous terms have several meanings while vague terms have an unclear meaning. Fallacies of ambiguity often result in merely verbal disputes: the arguing parties have
1695:
to how arguments and fallacies are to be conceived have been proposed. These alternatives often aim to show that, given their perspective, it is possible to evaluate if an alleged fallacy is actually fallacious in a given case. The dialogical approach uses a game-theoretic framework to define
1474:. An argument is a series of propositions, called the premises, together with one more proposition, called the conclusion. The premises in correct arguments offer either deductive or defeasible support for the conclusion. The source of the error in incorrect arguments can be in the argument's
1963:
arguments constitute an important class among the fallacies of relevance. In them, the arguer tries to attack a thesis by attacking the person pronouncing this thesis instead of attacking the thesis itself. Rejecting a theory in physics because its author is Jewish, which was common in the
1753:, on this perspective, is a fallacy because it fails to expand our knowledge by providing independent justification for its conclusion. Instead, the conclusion is already assumed in one of its premises. A purely logical approach, on the other hand, fails to explain the fallacious nature of
1442:
constitutes another framework. Its core idea is that arguments play an epistemic role: they aim to expand our knowledge by providing a bridge from already justified beliefs to not yet justified beliefs. Fallacies are arguments that fall short of this goal by breaking a rule of
1379:
to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions, or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit.
1938:, on the other hand, involves the converse mistake of drawing a universal conclusion based on a small number of instances. For example, "I've met two people in Nicaragua so far, and they were both nice to me. So, all people I will meet in Nicaragua will be nice to me".
1906:
involve a false or unjustified premise but are often valid otherwise. This problematic premise can take different forms and the belief in it can be caused in different ways, corresponding to the various sub-categories in this field. These fallacies include the
1776:
calculus may still reveal that the likelihood of all steps occurring together is quite small. In this case, the argument would constitute a fallacy. But slippery slope arguments are rationally justified if the associated probabilities are sufficiently high.
1434:. This criticism is often based on the argument that the alleged fallacies are not fallacious at all, or at least not in all cases. To overcome this problem, alternative approaches for conceiving arguments and fallacies have been proposed. These include the
1438:, which conceives arguments as moves in a dialogue-game aimed at rationally persuading the other person. This game is governed by various rules. Fallacies are defined as violations of the dialogue rules impeding the progress of the dialogue. The
1690:
The traditional approach to fallacies has received a lot of criticism in contemporary philosophy. This criticism is often based on the argument that some of the alleged fallacies are not fallacious at all, or at least not in all cases. Various
1708:
sees arguments not simply as a series of premises together with a conclusion but as a speech act within a dialogue that aims to rationally persuade the other person of one's own position. A prominent version of this approach is defended by
1861:
On one interpretation, the police are not allowed to drink alcohol. On another, it is now the job of the police to stop other people from drinking. The argument seems plausible on the former reading but fallacious on the latter reading.
1956:
involve premises that are not relevant to the conclusion despite appearances otherwise. They may succeed in persuading the audience nonetheless due to being emotionally loaded (for example: by playing on prejudice, pity or fear).
1627:
of an argument refers to the situation in which it is used. Based on its context it may be intended to play different roles. One way for an argument to be fallacious is if it fails to perform the role it was supposed to play. The
1881:
meaning. For example, the sentence "all the citizens are strong enough to resist a tyrant" may mean either that all together are strong enough (collective) or that each one individually is strong enough (distributive). The
1801:, in which the premises are not relevant to the conclusion despite appearances otherwise. Other categorizations have been proposed and some fallacies within this categorization could also be grouped in another category.
1945:
reason besides the initial assumption for its conclusion. Detecting this fallacy can be difficult when a complex argument with many sub-arguments is involved, resulting in a large circle.
1850:
also involves ambiguity in meaning, but this ambiguity arises not on the level of individual terms but on the level of the sentence as a whole due to syntactic ambiguity, for example:
1927:
Stacey may be neither communist nor capitalist. Our liability to commit false dilemmas may be due to the tendency to simplify reality by ordering it through either-or-statements.
1616:
of an argument is found on the level of its propositions: it is what is expressed in them. The source of many informal fallacies is found in a false premise. For example, a
1458:
are discussed as such in this article. Another conception, more common in non-scholarly discourse, sees fallacies not as arguments but rather as false yet popular beliefs.
1415:. There is no general agreement as to how the various fallacies are to be grouped into categories. One approach sometimes found in the literature is to distinguish between
2041:. The soundness of such arguments depends on the relevance of this similarity to the inferred feature. Without this relevance, the argument constitutes a faulty or
1721:
From this perspective, fallacies are defined as violations of the dialogue rules. They are "deceptively bad argument that impede the progress of the dialogue". The
3462:
3467:
1148:
1597:". Rules of inferences are formal because it depends only on the structure or the syntax of the premises and not on their content. So an argument based on
969:
3143:
This particular brand of changing the subject is called 'whataboutism' – a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet Union and, later, Russia.
1059:
50:
3127:
4379:
3310:
3255:
2816:
1262:
2443:
2045:, for example: "If a child gets a new toy he or she will want to play with it; So, if a nation gets new weapons, it will want to use them".
3845:
3202:'whataboutism', is in essence an appeal to hypocrisy; its only purpose is to discredit the opponent, not to refute the original argument.
1490:, it is considered a formal fallacy. Informal fallacies may also include formal errors but they primarily involve errors on the level of
3502:
3344:
3058:
Origin - 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about —?'. ... Also called
3031:
3167:
1335:
3656:
1977:
688:
514:
2600:
1746:
that are accidentally valid are still somehow flawed: because the arguer himself lacks a good reason to believe the conclusion.
1519:
1404:
1178:
1143:
3272:
4264:
3472:
1232:
1843:
Equivocations are especially difficult to detect in cases where the two meanings are very closely related to each other.
4399:
4300:
4276:
3865:
2989:"light_2 adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at"
1930:
For fallacies of generalization, the false premise is due to an erroneous generalization. In the case of the fallacy of
1886:
is committed if one infers from the sentence in the collective sense that one specific individual is strong enough. The
1444:
1222:
4389:
4369:
3877:
3621:
1069:
1972:
is a special form of the ad hominem fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with
3887:
3036:
1785:
3183:
4295:
3852:
3748:
979:
4290:
4130:
3598:
3434:
3390:
1765:
1652:
1133:
381:
1794:
1620:
is a fallacy based on a false disjunctive claim that oversimplifies reality by excluding viable alternatives.
1420:
4310:
4125:
3641:
3337:
3082:
3041:
1931:
1818:
1790:
1499:
1431:
1416:
1384:
919:
272:
101:
3077:
4232:
4222:
4172:
4146:
3922:
3796:
3763:
3664:
3646:
3546:
3395:
3377:
1994:
1870:
1798:
1656:
1507:
1424:
1392:
1328:
1163:
1039:
1029:
949:
386:
175:
4270:
4258:
4238:
4227:
4142:
3955:
3931:
3753:
3709:
3561:
3487:
3400:
2988:
2798:
1976:
without directly refuting or disproving their argument. It is particularly associated with contemporary
1789:
proposals commonly found in the academic literature in these or similar terms. It distinguishes between
1761:
1449:
1207:
1118:
1049:
909:
668:
531:
446:
343:
1454:, the epistemic norms are given by the laws of probability, which our degrees of belief should track.
4394:
4285:
4189:
4153:
4068:
4024:
3860:
3791:
3581:
3410:
3385:
3112:
3107:
2048:
1941:
1935:
1908:
1847:
1750:
1668:
1503:
1388:
1113:
1103:
899:
673:
633:
376:
4163:
4062:
4009:
3985:
3908:
3811:
3743:
3669:
3482:
3477:
3454:
3429:
2017:) based on the similarity between the two objects. Arguments from analogy have the following form:
1983:
1916:
1866:
1527:
1511:
1412:
1396:
1212:
1168:
1158:
1153:
1009:
889:
683:
348:
216:
1764:
constitutes a special form of the epistemic approach. Bayesianism interprets degrees of belief as
4384:
4374:
4348:
4281:
4095:
3980:
3965:
3912:
3872:
3821:
3758:
3717:
3694:
3674:
3577:
3421:
3405:
3330:
2924:
2776:
2646:
2188:
1912:
1523:
1408:
1297:
1108:
1079:
929:
879:
808:
733:
718:
651:
609:
320:
265:
146:
128:
4404:
4167:
4004:
3994:
3970:
3947:
3903:
3829:
3781:
3739:
3699:
3541:
3536:
3358:
3306:
3251:
3163:
2882:
2812:
2060:
1710:
1572:
1534:
tries to account for these fallacies using the concepts and theses discussed in this section.
1321:
1272:
1128:
1019:
858:
853:
803:
678:
641:
602:
509:
260:
205:
34:
4317:
4158:
4057:
3999:
3937:
3732:
3611:
3606:
3591:
3556:
3444:
3439:
3045:
2916:
2804:
2768:
2638:
2502:
2180:
1722:
1644:
1629:
1471:
1364:
1356:
1292:
1237:
1123:
793:
619:
338:
255:
116:
111:
1821:, in which the same term appears with two different meanings in the premises, for example:
4038:
4014:
3834:
3806:
3786:
3634:
3602:
3586:
1965:
1427:, in which the premises are not relevant to the conclusion despite appearances otherwise.
1257:
1173:
989:
848:
758:
723:
663:
558:
504:
461:
154:
4074:
3551:
17:
3218:
1383:
Traditionally, a great number of informal fallacies have been identified, including the
3975:
3960:
3882:
3801:
3727:
3367:
2070:
1891:
property from the whole to its parts or the other way round belongs to the category of
1772:
1714:
1672:
1201:
999:
833:
728:
658:
548:
541:
401:
333:
1651:
but they can only account for a small number of the known fallacies, for example, for
4363:
4100:
3990:
3722:
3685:
3629:
3497:
3492:
3155:
2840:
2780:
2650:
2192:
2042:
1923:
1873:
are due to ambiguity of the term "all" and similar expressions. This term has both a
1664:
1617:
1515:
1400:
1302:
1287:
1138:
939:
798:
773:
738:
585:
553:
84:
74:
2928:
4112:
3531:
1969:
1648:
1577:
1282:
1227:
828:
614:
469:
438:
306:
3278:
1991:
concludes from the absence of proof against a claim that this claim must be true.
3300:
3245:
4305:
4082:
4019:
2274:
1307:
1267:
1242:
753:
748:
432:
422:
2871:"The Slippery Slope Argument – Probability, Utility & Category Reappraisal"
2051:
may confuse older or "original" meanings of words with current semantic usage.
1663:, e.g. in advertising or in politics, involve informal fallacies. For example,
4215:
4209:
4136:
4048:
3073:
2920:
2808:
2772:
2642:
2184:
1960:
959:
838:
823:
818:
597:
519:
480:
394:
285:
181:
2886:
2396:
4322:
4106:
4090:
3773:
2870:
2797:
Woods, John; Walton, Douglas (1989). "Chapter 17. What is
Informal Logic?".
1973:
1726:
1277:
778:
708:
646:
578:
492:
475:
456:
451:
237:
231:
210:
192:
4252:
3128:"Trump Embraces One Of Russia's Favorite Propaganda Tactics — Whataboutism"
2507:
3322:
4200:
3188:
1555:
The source of the error in incorrect arguments can lie in the argument's
1467:
1430:
The traditional approach to fallacies has received a lot of criticism in
1352:
590:
568:
486:
292:
278:
140:
123:
106:
89:
79:
69:
61:
42:
1857:
So, now they are able to respond to emergencies much better than before"
3354:
2065:
2002:
843:
768:
763:
713:
573:
563:
536:
299:
243:
186:
133:
94:
2904:
2756:
2734:
2687:
1252:
1247:
788:
783:
743:
524:
499:
427:
361:
327:
314:
225:
199:
3015:
2972:
2946:
2717:
2670:
2626:
2546:
2526:
2490:
2375:
2355:
2168:
2146:
1678:
The distinction between formal and informal fallacies is opposed by
1671:
are fallacies despite being deductively valid. They are studied by
2875:
Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society
813:
368:
354:
1854:"The police were told to stop drinking on campus after midnight.
1217:
3326:
2318:
3131:
1729:"fallacy" is no fallacy at all. This argument, also known as
1601:
is valid no matter what propositional contents are used for "
2672:
Informal
Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms
2148:
Informal
Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms
1817:
Fallacies of ambiguity are perhaps best exemplified by the
2009:
involve inferences from information about a known object (
2354:
Engel, S. Morris (1982). "1. Nature and scope of logic".
2145:
Walton, Douglas N. (1987). "1. A new model of argument".
2005:
is a comparison between two objects based on similarity.
2716:
Engel, S. Morris (1982). "4. Fallacies of presumption".
1793:, which have their root in ambiguous or vague language,
1771:
This perspective is well suited for explaining why some
1647:
arguments. They are of special interest to the field of
1419:, which have their root in ambiguous or vague language,
2669:
Walton, Douglas N. (1987). "3. Logic of propositions".
3017:
3014:
Engel, S. Morris (1982). "5. Fallacies of relevance".
2974:
2971:
Engel, S. Morris (1982). "3. Fallacies of ambiguity".
2948:
2945:
Engel, S. Morris (1982). "2. The medium of language".
2719:
2548:
2357:
With Good Reason an Introduction to Informal Fallacies
3184:"How Putin succeeded in undermining our institutions"
2169:"Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies"
2905:"A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies"
1581:, which states that given a premise of the form "If
4199:
4187:
4046:
4037:
3946:
3921:
3896:
3820:
3772:
3708:
3683:
3655:
3620:
3570:
3524:
3515:
3453:
3419:
3375:
3366:
3299:Salmon, Merrilee (2012). "Arguments from analogy".
2869:Corner, Adam; Hahn, Ulrike; Oaksford, Mike (2006).
1895:, even when linguistic ambiguity is not the cause.
1797:, which involve false or unjustified premises, and
1423:, which involve false or unjustified premises, and
1636:Natural language and contrast to formal fallacies
1359:. The source of the error is not just due to the
3244:Bunnin, Nicholas; Yu, Jiyuan (2009). "analogy".
3225:. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University
2847:. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University
2281:. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University
3463:Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
3247:The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy
2391:
2389:
2387:
1375:. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually
27:Form of incorrect argument in natural language
3468:Negative conclusion from affirmative premises
3338:
2397:"The Fallacy Files: Informal Logical Fallacy"
1329:
8:
3160:Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands
2750:
2748:
2746:
2374:Vleet, Van Jacob E. (2010). "Introduction".
2369:
2367:
1836:cannot be dark. ("light" as "pale in color")
1575:". The most well-known rule of inference is
1571:or structure of an argument is also called "
3302:Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
1966:German physics community in the early 1930s
1466:Informal fallacies are a form of incorrect
970:A Dialogue Concerning Oratorical Partitions
4196:
4043:
3918:
3521:
3372:
3345:
3331:
3323:
3271:Sandkühler, Hans Jörg (2010). "Analogie".
2834:
2832:
2830:
2828:
2733:Honderich, Ted (2005). "logic, informal".
2664:
2662:
2660:
2594:
2592:
2590:
2588:
2586:
2584:
2582:
2580:
2578:
1336:
1322:
29:
3212:
3210:
3009:
3007:
3005:
2966:
2964:
2962:
2960:
2958:
2940:
2938:
2864:
2862:
2711:
2709:
2707:
2705:
2703:
2701:
2699:
2576:
2574:
2572:
2570:
2568:
2566:
2564:
2562:
2560:
2558:
2528:Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide
2506:
2377:Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide
2268:
2266:
2264:
2262:
2260:
2258:
2256:
2254:
2252:
2250:
2248:
2246:
2244:
2242:
2240:
2238:
2236:
2234:
2232:
2230:
2228:
2226:
2224:
2222:
2140:
2138:
2136:
2134:
2132:
2130:
2128:
2126:
2124:
2122:
2120:
2118:
2116:
2114:
2112:
2110:
2108:
2106:
1757:since the argument is deductively valid.
2841:"Informal Logic: 4. Assessing Arguments"
2792:
2790:
2757:"Deductivism and the Informal Fallacies"
2686:Lopez, Shane J. (2009). "modus ponens".
2627:"False Dilemma: A Systematic Exposition"
2540:
2538:
2520:
2518:
2437:
2349:
2347:
2345:
2343:
2341:
2339:
2312:
2310:
2308:
2306:
2304:
2302:
2300:
2298:
2296:
2220:
2218:
2216:
2214:
2212:
2210:
2208:
2206:
2204:
2202:
2162:
2160:
2158:
2104:
2102:
2100:
2098:
2096:
2094:
2092:
2090:
2088:
2086:
2013:) to the features of an unknown object (
1060:Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style
3223:The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2898:
2896:
2845:The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2689:The Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology
2484:
2435:
2433:
2431:
2429:
2427:
2425:
2423:
2421:
2419:
2417:
2279:The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2082:
41:
3305:. Cengage Learning. pp. 132–142.
3182:Trudolyubov, Maxim (15 January 2017),
3126:Kurtzleben, Danielle (17 March 2017).
2482:
2480:
2478:
2476:
2474:
2472:
2470:
2468:
2466:
2464:
3078:"The Roots of the 'What About?' Ploy"
2903:Hahn, Ulrike; Oaksford, Mike (2006).
2491:"Bayesian Informal Logic and Fallacy"
1893:fallacies of division and composition
1263:Rhetoric of social intervention model
7:
1363:of the argument, as is the case for
2323:Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2167:Siegel, Harvey; Biro, John (1997).
1839:Therefore, feathers cannot be dark.
3219:"Analogy and Analogical Reasoning"
2736:The Oxford Companion to Philosophy
1486:. If the error is only due to the
25:
4344:
4343:
2991:. Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com
49:
1659:. Many other fallacies used in
1520:fallacy of begging the question
1405:fallacy of begging the question
1367:, but can also be due to their
3841:Correlation implies causation
1:
4380:Barriers to critical thinking
1233:List of feminist rhetoricians
2525:Vleet, Van Jacob E. (2010).
1809:The source of the error for
1223:Glossary of rhetorical terms
3162:, I.B.Tauris, p. 216,
1593:", then the conclusion is "
1589:" and another in the form "
1070:Language as Symbolic Action
4421:
4265:I'm entitled to my opinion
3037:Oxford Living Dictionaries
2739:. Oxford University Press.
2037:probably also has feature
1829:. ("light" as "not heavy")
1551:Form, content, and context
4339:
4248:
4121:
2921:10.1007/s11229-005-5233-2
2809:10.1515/9783110816082-019
2773:10.1007/s10503-007-9045-z
2643:10.1007/s10503-013-9292-0
2545:Engel, S. Morris (1982).
1741:The core idea behind the
980:De Optimo Genere Oratorum
18:Fallacy in informal logic
4291:Motte-and-bailey fallacy
3391:Affirming the consequent
3277:. Meiner. Archived from
3274:Enzyklopädie Philosophie
2755:Jacquette, Dale (2007).
1997:are also susceptible to
1904:Fallacies of presumption
1899:Fallacies of presumption
1795:fallacies of presumption
1766:subjective probabilities
1653:affirming the consequent
1508:fallacies of composition
1421:fallacies of presumption
1393:fallacies of composition
1351:are a type of incorrect
4311:Two wrongs make a right
3642:Denying the correlative
3083:The Wall Street Journal
3042:Oxford University Press
2185:10.1023/A:1007799325361
1932:sweeping generalization
1819:fallacy of equivocation
1538:Arguments and fallacies
1500:fallacy of equivocation
1445:epistemic justification
1432:contemporary philosophy
1385:fallacy of equivocation
920:De Sophisticis Elenchis
4296:Psychologist's fallacy
4233:Argument to moderation
4223:Argument from anecdote
4173:Chronological snobbery
3797:Quoting out of context
3764:Overwhelming exception
3647:Suppressed correlative
3547:Quoting out of context
3422:quantificational logic
3396:Denying the antecedent
3044:, 2017, archived from
2599:Mackie, J. L. (1967).
2508:10.22329/il.v24i1.2132
2049:Etymological fallacies
2007:Arguments from analogy
1999:fallacies of relevance
1995:Arguments from analogy
1954:Fallacies of relevance
1949:Fallacies of relevance
1888:fallacy of composition
1811:fallacies of ambiguity
1805:Fallacies of ambiguity
1799:fallacies of relevance
1791:fallacies of ambiguity
1693:alternative approaches
1657:denying the antecedent
1425:fallacies of relevance
1417:fallacies of ambiguity
1040:De doctrina Christiana
1030:Dialogus de oratoribus
950:Rhetorica ad Herennium
176:Captatio benevolentiae
4259:The Four Great Errors
4239:Argumentum ad populum
4228:Argument from silence
3932:Argumentum ad baculum
3710:Faulty generalization
3401:Argument from fallacy
3217:Bartha, Paul (2019).
2839:Groarke, Leo (2020).
2803:. De Gruyter Mouton.
2625:Tomić, Taeda (2013).
2273:Hansen, Hans (2020).
1867:fallacies of division
1208:Communication studies
1050:De vulgari eloquentia
910:Rhetoric to Alexander
4277:Invincible ignorance
4083:Reductio ad Stalinum
4069:Reductio ad Hitlerum
4025:Wisdom of repugnance
3792:Moving the goalposts
3657:Illicit transference
3582:Begging the question
3503:Undistributed middle
3411:Mathematical fallacy
3386:Affirming a disjunct
3113:Cambridge Dictionary
2605:www.encyclopedia.com
2489:Korb, Kevin (2004).
2448:www.encyclopedia.com
2401:www.fallacyfiles.org
1942:Begging the question
1936:Hasty generalization
1909:naturalistic fallacy
1848:fallacy of amphiboly
1755:begging the question
1751:begging the question
1669:begging the question
1532:traditional approach
1504:fallacy of amphiboly
1389:fallacy of amphiboly
4400:Philosophical logic
4010:Parade of horribles
3986:In-group favoritism
3812:Syntactic ambiguity
3455:Syllogistic fallacy
3378:propositional logic
1989:appeal to ignorance
1984:Appeal to ignorance
1917:intentional fallacy
1884:fallacy of division
1731:appeal to hypocrisy
1706:dialogical approach
1645:deductively invalid
1528:appeal to ignorance
1462:Traditional account
1436:dialogical approach
1413:appeal to ignorance
1213:Composition studies
1144:Health and medicine
1010:Institutio Oratoria
217:Eloquentia perfecta
4390:Informal arguments
4370:Informal fallacies
4096:Poisoning the well
3913:Proof by assertion
3888:Texas sharpshooter
3822:Questionable cause
3759:Slothful induction
3718:Anecdotal evidence
3578:Circular reasoning
3473:Exclusive premises
3435:Illicit conversion
2692:. Wiley-Blackwell.
2444:"Fallacy, Logical"
1978:Russian propaganda
1913:moralistic fallacy
1743:epistemic approach
1524:ad hominem fallacy
1440:epistemic approach
1409:ad hominem fallacy
1349:Informal fallacies
1298:Terministic screen
1080:A General Rhetoric
610:Resignation speech
147:Studia humanitatis
129:Byzantine rhetoric
4357:
4356:
4335:
4334:
4331:
4330:
4271:Ignoratio elenchi
4183:
4182:
4033:
4032:
3995:Not invented here
3700:Converse accident
3622:Correlative-based
3599:Compound question
3542:False attribution
3537:False equivalence
3511:
3510:
3312:978-1-133-71164-3
3257:978-0-470-99721-5
2818:978-3-11-081608-2
2675:. John Benjamins.
2317:Dowden, Bradley.
2151:. John Benjamins.
2061:List of fallacies
1762:Bayesian approach
1711:Douglas N. Walton
1573:rule of inference
1346:
1345:
1273:Rogerian argument
1020:Panegyrici Latini
112:The age of Cicero
16:(Redirected from
4412:
4347:
4346:
4318:Special pleading
4197:
4058:Appeal to motive
4044:
4020:Stirring symbols
4000:Island mentality
3938:Wishful thinking
3919:
3635:Perfect solution
3612:No true Scotsman
3607:Complex question
3592:Leading question
3571:Question-begging
3557:No true Scotsman
3522:
3445:Quantifier shift
3440:Proof by example
3373:
3347:
3340:
3333:
3324:
3317:
3316:
3296:
3290:
3289:
3287:
3286:
3268:
3262:
3261:
3241:
3235:
3234:
3232:
3230:
3214:
3205:
3204:
3198:
3196:
3179:
3173:
3172:
3152:
3146:
3145:
3140:
3138:
3123:
3117:
3116:
3104:
3098:
3097:
3092:
3090:
3070:
3064:
3063:
3055:
3053:
3028:
3022:
3021:
3011:
3000:
2999:
2997:
2996:
2985:
2979:
2978:
2968:
2953:
2952:
2942:
2933:
2932:
2900:
2891:
2890:
2866:
2857:
2856:
2854:
2852:
2836:
2823:
2822:
2794:
2785:
2784:
2752:
2741:
2740:
2730:
2724:
2723:
2713:
2694:
2693:
2683:
2677:
2676:
2666:
2655:
2654:
2622:
2616:
2615:
2613:
2611:
2596:
2553:
2552:
2542:
2533:
2532:
2522:
2513:
2512:
2510:
2486:
2459:
2458:
2456:
2454:
2442:Stump, David J.
2439:
2412:
2411:
2409:
2407:
2393:
2382:
2381:
2371:
2362:
2361:
2351:
2334:
2333:
2331:
2329:
2314:
2291:
2290:
2288:
2286:
2270:
2197:
2196:
2164:
2153:
2152:
2142:
1723:strawman fallacy
1686:Other approaches
1661:natural language
1641:Formal fallacies
1630:strawman fallacy
1472:natural language
1365:formal fallacies
1357:natural language
1338:
1331:
1324:
1238:List of speeches
1085:
1075:
1065:
1055:
1045:
1035:
1025:
1015:
1005:
995:
985:
975:
965:
955:
945:
935:
925:
915:
905:
895:
885:
689:Neo-Aristotelian
256:Figure of speech
117:Second Sophistic
53:
30:
21:
4420:
4419:
4415:
4414:
4413:
4411:
4410:
4409:
4360:
4359:
4358:
4353:
4327:
4301:Rationalization
4244:
4191:
4179:
4117:
4039:Genetic fallacy
4029:
3942:
3917:
3892:
3816:
3807:Sorites paradox
3787:False precision
3768:
3749:Double counting
3704:
3679:
3651:
3616:
3603:Loaded question
3587:Loaded language
3566:
3507:
3449:
3415:
3362:
3351:
3321:
3320:
3313:
3298:
3297:
3293:
3284:
3282:
3270:
3269:
3265:
3258:
3243:
3242:
3238:
3228:
3226:
3216:
3215:
3208:
3194:
3192:
3181:
3180:
3176:
3170:
3154:
3153:
3149:
3136:
3134:
3125:
3124:
3120:
3106:
3105:
3101:
3088:
3086:
3076:(9 June 2017).
3072:
3071:
3067:
3051:
3049:
3048:on 9 March 2017
3030:
3029:
3025:
3013:
3012:
3003:
2994:
2992:
2987:
2986:
2982:
2970:
2969:
2956:
2944:
2943:
2936:
2902:
2901:
2894:
2868:
2867:
2860:
2850:
2848:
2838:
2837:
2826:
2819:
2796:
2795:
2788:
2754:
2753:
2744:
2732:
2731:
2727:
2715:
2714:
2697:
2685:
2684:
2680:
2668:
2667:
2658:
2624:
2623:
2619:
2609:
2607:
2598:
2597:
2556:
2544:
2543:
2536:
2524:
2523:
2516:
2488:
2487:
2462:
2452:
2450:
2441:
2440:
2415:
2405:
2403:
2395:
2394:
2385:
2373:
2372:
2365:
2353:
2352:
2337:
2327:
2325:
2316:
2315:
2294:
2284:
2282:
2272:
2271:
2200:
2166:
2165:
2156:
2144:
2143:
2084:
2079:
2057:
1951:
1901:
1807:
1782:
1749:The fallacy of
1739:
1702:
1688:
1638:
1553:
1540:
1464:
1342:
1313:
1312:
1258:Public rhetoric
1196:
1195:
1186:
1185:
1134:Native American
1099:
1098:
1089:
1088:
1083:
1073:
1063:
1053:
1043:
1033:
1023:
1013:
1003:
993:
983:
973:
963:
953:
943:
933:
923:
913:
903:
893:
883:
874:
873:
864:
863:
704:
703:
694:
693:
637:
636:
625:
624:
515:Funeral oration
505:Farewell speech
462:Socratic method
418:
417:
408:
407:
170:
169:
160:
159:
65:
64:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
4418:
4416:
4408:
4407:
4402:
4397:
4392:
4387:
4382:
4377:
4372:
4362:
4361:
4355:
4354:
4352:
4351:
4340:
4337:
4336:
4333:
4332:
4329:
4328:
4326:
4325:
4320:
4315:
4314:
4313:
4303:
4298:
4293:
4288:
4279:
4274:
4267:
4262:
4255:
4249:
4246:
4245:
4243:
4242:
4235:
4230:
4225:
4220:
4219:
4218:
4205:
4203:
4194:
4185:
4184:
4181:
4180:
4178:
4177:
4176:
4175:
4161:
4156:
4151:
4150:
4149:
4140:
4133:
4131:Accomplishment
4122:
4119:
4118:
4116:
4115:
4110:
4103:
4098:
4093:
4088:
4087:
4086:
4079:
4078:
4077:
4060:
4054:
4052:
4041:
4035:
4034:
4031:
4030:
4028:
4027:
4022:
4017:
4012:
4007:
4002:
3997:
3988:
3983:
3978:
3973:
3968:
3963:
3958:
3952:
3950:
3944:
3943:
3941:
3940:
3935:
3927:
3925:
3916:
3915:
3906:
3900:
3898:
3894:
3893:
3891:
3890:
3885:
3883:Slippery slope
3880:
3875:
3870:
3869:
3868:
3858:
3857:
3856:
3849:
3839:
3838:
3837:
3826:
3824:
3818:
3817:
3815:
3814:
3809:
3804:
3802:Slippery slope
3799:
3794:
3789:
3784:
3778:
3776:
3770:
3769:
3767:
3766:
3761:
3756:
3751:
3746:
3737:
3736:
3735:
3730:
3728:Cherry picking
3720:
3714:
3712:
3706:
3705:
3703:
3702:
3697:
3691:
3689:
3681:
3680:
3678:
3677:
3672:
3667:
3661:
3659:
3653:
3652:
3650:
3649:
3644:
3639:
3638:
3637:
3626:
3624:
3618:
3617:
3615:
3614:
3609:
3596:
3595:
3594:
3584:
3574:
3572:
3568:
3567:
3565:
3564:
3559:
3554:
3549:
3544:
3539:
3534:
3528:
3526:
3519:
3513:
3512:
3509:
3508:
3506:
3505:
3500:
3495:
3490:
3485:
3480:
3475:
3470:
3465:
3459:
3457:
3451:
3450:
3448:
3447:
3442:
3437:
3432:
3426:
3424:
3417:
3416:
3414:
3413:
3408:
3403:
3398:
3393:
3388:
3382:
3380:
3370:
3364:
3363:
3352:
3350:
3349:
3342:
3335:
3327:
3319:
3318:
3311:
3291:
3263:
3256:
3236:
3206:
3174:
3169:978-1784530648
3168:
3156:Sakwa, Richard
3147:
3118:
3108:"whataboutism"
3099:
3065:
3032:"whataboutism"
3023:
3001:
2980:
2954:
2934:
2915:(2): 207–236.
2892:
2858:
2824:
2817:
2786:
2767:(4): 335–347.
2742:
2725:
2695:
2678:
2656:
2637:(4): 347–368.
2617:
2554:
2534:
2514:
2495:Informal Logic
2460:
2413:
2383:
2363:
2335:
2292:
2198:
2179:(3): 277–292.
2154:
2081:
2080:
2078:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2071:Formal fallacy
2068:
2063:
2056:
2053:
2021:is similar to
1950:
1947:
1900:
1897:
1859:
1858:
1855:
1841:
1840:
1837:
1830:
1806:
1803:
1781:
1778:
1773:slippery slope
1738:
1735:
1715:game-theoretic
1701:
1698:
1687:
1684:
1673:informal logic
1665:false dilemmas
1637:
1634:
1552:
1549:
1539:
1536:
1463:
1460:
1344:
1343:
1341:
1340:
1333:
1326:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1305:
1300:
1295:
1290:
1285:
1280:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1245:
1240:
1235:
1230:
1225:
1220:
1215:
1210:
1205:
1202:Ars dictaminis
1197:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1171:
1166:
1161:
1156:
1151:
1146:
1141:
1136:
1131:
1126:
1121:
1116:
1111:
1106:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1087:
1086:
1076:
1066:
1056:
1046:
1036:
1026:
1016:
1006:
1000:On the Sublime
996:
986:
976:
966:
956:
946:
936:
926:
916:
906:
896:
886:
875:
871:
870:
869:
866:
865:
862:
861:
856:
851:
846:
841:
836:
831:
826:
821:
816:
811:
806:
801:
796:
791:
786:
781:
776:
771:
766:
761:
756:
751:
746:
741:
736:
731:
726:
721:
716:
711:
705:
701:
700:
699:
696:
695:
692:
691:
686:
681:
676:
671:
666:
661:
656:
655:
654:
644:
638:
632:
631:
630:
627:
626:
623:
622:
617:
612:
607:
606:
605:
595:
594:
593:
583:
582:
581:
576:
571:
561:
556:
551:
549:Lightning talk
546:
545:
544:
534:
529:
528:
527:
517:
512:
507:
502:
497:
496:
495:
490:
478:
473:
466:
465:
464:
454:
449:
444:
443:
442:
430:
425:
419:
415:
414:
413:
410:
409:
406:
405:
398:
391:
390:
389:
379:
374:
373:
372:
365:
358:
346:
341:
336:
334:Method of loci
331:
324:
317:
312:
311:
310:
303:
296:
289:
282:
270:
269:
268:
263:
253:
252:
251:
241:
234:
229:
222:
221:
220:
208:
203:
196:
189:
184:
179:
171:
167:
166:
165:
162:
161:
158:
157:
152:
151:
150:
138:
137:
136:
131:
121:
120:
119:
114:
104:
99:
98:
97:
92:
87:
82:
77:
70:Ancient Greece
66:
60:
59:
58:
55:
54:
46:
45:
39:
38:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4417:
4406:
4403:
4401:
4398:
4396:
4393:
4391:
4388:
4386:
4383:
4381:
4378:
4376:
4373:
4371:
4368:
4367:
4365:
4350:
4342:
4341:
4338:
4324:
4321:
4319:
4316:
4312:
4309:
4308:
4307:
4304:
4302:
4299:
4297:
4294:
4292:
4289:
4287:
4283:
4280:
4278:
4275:
4273:
4272:
4268:
4266:
4263:
4261:
4260:
4256:
4254:
4251:
4250:
4247:
4241:
4240:
4236:
4234:
4231:
4229:
4226:
4224:
4221:
4217:
4214:
4213:
4212:
4211:
4207:
4206:
4204:
4202:
4198:
4195:
4193:
4186:
4174:
4171:
4170:
4169:
4165:
4162:
4160:
4157:
4155:
4152:
4148:
4144:
4141:
4139:
4138:
4134:
4132:
4129:
4128:
4127:
4124:
4123:
4120:
4114:
4111:
4109:
4108:
4104:
4102:
4099:
4097:
4094:
4092:
4089:
4085:
4084:
4080:
4076:
4073:
4072:
4071:
4070:
4066:
4065:
4064:
4061:
4059:
4056:
4055:
4053:
4051:
4050:
4045:
4042:
4040:
4036:
4026:
4023:
4021:
4018:
4016:
4013:
4011:
4008:
4006:
4003:
4001:
3998:
3996:
3992:
3991:Invented here
3989:
3987:
3984:
3982:
3979:
3977:
3974:
3972:
3969:
3967:
3964:
3962:
3959:
3957:
3954:
3953:
3951:
3949:
3945:
3939:
3936:
3934:
3933:
3929:
3928:
3926:
3924:
3920:
3914:
3910:
3907:
3905:
3902:
3901:
3899:
3895:
3889:
3886:
3884:
3881:
3879:
3876:
3874:
3871:
3867:
3864:
3863:
3862:
3859:
3855:
3854:
3850:
3848:
3847:
3843:
3842:
3840:
3836:
3833:
3832:
3831:
3828:
3827:
3825:
3823:
3819:
3813:
3810:
3808:
3805:
3803:
3800:
3798:
3795:
3793:
3790:
3788:
3785:
3783:
3780:
3779:
3777:
3775:
3771:
3765:
3762:
3760:
3757:
3755:
3754:False analogy
3752:
3750:
3747:
3745:
3741:
3738:
3734:
3731:
3729:
3726:
3725:
3724:
3723:Sampling bias
3721:
3719:
3716:
3715:
3713:
3711:
3707:
3701:
3698:
3696:
3693:
3692:
3690:
3688:
3687:
3686:Secundum quid
3682:
3676:
3673:
3671:
3668:
3666:
3663:
3662:
3660:
3658:
3654:
3648:
3645:
3643:
3640:
3636:
3633:
3632:
3631:
3630:False dilemma
3628:
3627:
3625:
3623:
3619:
3613:
3610:
3608:
3604:
3600:
3597:
3593:
3590:
3589:
3588:
3585:
3583:
3579:
3576:
3575:
3573:
3569:
3563:
3560:
3558:
3555:
3553:
3550:
3548:
3545:
3543:
3540:
3538:
3535:
3533:
3530:
3529:
3527:
3523:
3520:
3518:
3514:
3504:
3501:
3499:
3498:Illicit minor
3496:
3494:
3493:Illicit major
3491:
3489:
3486:
3484:
3481:
3479:
3476:
3474:
3471:
3469:
3466:
3464:
3461:
3460:
3458:
3456:
3452:
3446:
3443:
3441:
3438:
3436:
3433:
3431:
3428:
3427:
3425:
3423:
3418:
3412:
3409:
3407:
3404:
3402:
3399:
3397:
3394:
3392:
3389:
3387:
3384:
3383:
3381:
3379:
3374:
3371:
3369:
3365:
3360:
3356:
3348:
3343:
3341:
3336:
3334:
3329:
3328:
3325:
3314:
3308:
3304:
3303:
3295:
3292:
3281:on 2021-03-11
3280:
3276:
3275:
3267:
3264:
3259:
3253:
3249:
3248:
3240:
3237:
3224:
3220:
3213:
3211:
3207:
3203:
3191:
3190:
3185:
3178:
3175:
3171:
3165:
3161:
3157:
3151:
3148:
3144:
3133:
3129:
3122:
3119:
3115:
3114:
3109:
3103:
3100:
3096:
3085:
3084:
3079:
3075:
3069:
3066:
3062:
3061:
3047:
3043:
3039:
3038:
3033:
3027:
3024:
3019:
3018:
3010:
3008:
3006:
3002:
2990:
2984:
2981:
2976:
2975:
2967:
2965:
2963:
2961:
2959:
2955:
2950:
2949:
2941:
2939:
2935:
2930:
2926:
2922:
2918:
2914:
2910:
2906:
2899:
2897:
2893:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2872:
2865:
2863:
2859:
2846:
2842:
2835:
2833:
2831:
2829:
2825:
2820:
2814:
2810:
2806:
2802:
2801:
2793:
2791:
2787:
2782:
2778:
2774:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2761:Argumentation
2758:
2751:
2749:
2747:
2743:
2738:
2737:
2729:
2726:
2721:
2720:
2712:
2710:
2708:
2706:
2704:
2702:
2700:
2696:
2691:
2690:
2682:
2679:
2674:
2673:
2665:
2663:
2661:
2657:
2652:
2648:
2644:
2640:
2636:
2632:
2631:Argumentation
2628:
2621:
2618:
2606:
2602:
2595:
2593:
2591:
2589:
2587:
2585:
2583:
2581:
2579:
2577:
2575:
2573:
2571:
2569:
2567:
2565:
2563:
2561:
2559:
2555:
2550:
2549:
2541:
2539:
2535:
2530:
2529:
2521:
2519:
2515:
2509:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2492:
2485:
2483:
2481:
2479:
2477:
2475:
2473:
2471:
2469:
2467:
2465:
2461:
2449:
2445:
2438:
2436:
2434:
2432:
2430:
2428:
2426:
2424:
2422:
2420:
2418:
2414:
2402:
2398:
2392:
2390:
2388:
2384:
2379:
2378:
2370:
2368:
2364:
2359:
2358:
2350:
2348:
2346:
2344:
2342:
2340:
2336:
2324:
2320:
2313:
2311:
2309:
2307:
2305:
2303:
2301:
2299:
2297:
2293:
2280:
2276:
2269:
2267:
2265:
2263:
2261:
2259:
2257:
2255:
2253:
2251:
2249:
2247:
2245:
2243:
2241:
2239:
2237:
2235:
2233:
2231:
2229:
2227:
2225:
2223:
2221:
2219:
2217:
2215:
2213:
2211:
2209:
2207:
2205:
2203:
2199:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2173:Argumentation
2170:
2163:
2161:
2159:
2155:
2150:
2149:
2141:
2139:
2137:
2135:
2133:
2131:
2129:
2127:
2125:
2123:
2121:
2119:
2117:
2115:
2113:
2111:
2109:
2107:
2105:
2103:
2101:
2099:
2097:
2095:
2093:
2091:
2089:
2087:
2083:
2076:
2072:
2069:
2067:
2064:
2062:
2059:
2058:
2054:
2052:
2050:
2046:
2044:
2043:false analogy
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1990:
1985:
1981:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1962:
1958:
1955:
1948:
1946:
1943:
1939:
1937:
1933:
1928:
1925:
1924:false dilemma
1920:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1905:
1898:
1896:
1894:
1889:
1885:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1863:
1856:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1849:
1844:
1838:
1835:
1831:
1828:
1825:Feathers are
1824:
1823:
1822:
1820:
1815:
1812:
1804:
1802:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1787:
1786:great variety
1779:
1777:
1774:
1769:
1767:
1763:
1758:
1756:
1752:
1747:
1744:
1736:
1734:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1719:
1716:
1712:
1707:
1699:
1697:
1694:
1685:
1683:
1681:
1676:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1635:
1633:
1631:
1626:
1621:
1619:
1618:false dilemma
1615:
1610:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1579:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1550:
1548:
1544:
1537:
1535:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1516:false dilemma
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1461:
1459:
1455:
1453:
1451:
1446:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1428:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1401:false dilemma
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1339:
1334:
1332:
1327:
1325:
1320:
1319:
1317:
1316:
1309:
1306:
1304:
1303:Toulmin model
1301:
1299:
1296:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1288:Talking point
1286:
1284:
1283:Speechwriting
1281:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1231:
1229:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1219:
1216:
1214:
1211:
1209:
1206:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1190:
1189:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1172:
1170:
1167:
1165:
1162:
1160:
1157:
1155:
1152:
1150:
1147:
1145:
1142:
1140:
1137:
1135:
1132:
1130:
1127:
1125:
1122:
1120:
1117:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1104:Argumentation
1102:
1101:
1093:
1092:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1002:
1001:
997:
992:
991:
987:
982:
981:
977:
972:
971:
967:
962:
961:
957:
952:
951:
947:
942:
941:
940:De Inventione
937:
932:
931:
927:
922:
921:
917:
912:
911:
907:
902:
901:
897:
892:
891:
887:
882:
881:
877:
876:
868:
867:
860:
857:
855:
852:
850:
847:
845:
842:
840:
837:
835:
832:
830:
827:
825:
822:
820:
817:
815:
812:
810:
807:
805:
802:
800:
797:
795:
792:
790:
787:
785:
782:
780:
777:
775:
772:
770:
767:
765:
762:
760:
757:
755:
752:
750:
747:
745:
742:
740:
737:
735:
732:
730:
727:
725:
722:
720:
717:
715:
712:
710:
707:
706:
698:
697:
690:
687:
685:
682:
680:
677:
675:
672:
670:
667:
665:
662:
660:
657:
653:
650:
649:
648:
645:
643:
640:
639:
635:
629:
628:
621:
620:War-mongering
618:
616:
613:
611:
608:
604:
601:
600:
599:
596:
592:
589:
588:
587:
586:Progymnasmata
584:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
567:
566:
565:
562:
560:
557:
555:
554:Maiden speech
552:
550:
547:
543:
540:
539:
538:
535:
533:
530:
526:
523:
522:
521:
518:
516:
513:
511:
508:
506:
503:
501:
498:
494:
491:
489:
488:
484:
483:
482:
479:
477:
474:
472:
471:
467:
463:
460:
459:
458:
455:
453:
450:
448:
445:
441:
440:
436:
435:
434:
431:
429:
426:
424:
421:
420:
412:
411:
404:
403:
399:
397:
396:
392:
388:
385:
384:
383:
380:
378:
375:
371:
370:
366:
364:
363:
359:
357:
356:
352:
351:
350:
347:
345:
342:
340:
337:
335:
332:
330:
329:
325:
323:
322:
318:
316:
313:
309:
308:
304:
302:
301:
297:
295:
294:
290:
288:
287:
283:
281:
280:
276:
275:
274:
271:
267:
264:
262:
259:
258:
257:
254:
250:
247:
246:
245:
242:
240:
239:
235:
233:
230:
228:
227:
223:
219:
218:
214:
213:
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
201:
197:
195:
194:
190:
188:
185:
183:
180:
178:
177:
173:
172:
164:
163:
156:
155:Modern period
153:
149:
148:
144:
143:
142:
139:
135:
132:
130:
127:
126:
125:
122:
118:
115:
113:
110:
109:
108:
105:
103:
102:Ancient India
100:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
85:Attic orators
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
72:
71:
68:
67:
63:
57:
56:
52:
48:
47:
44:
40:
36:
32:
31:
19:
4286:Naturalistic
4269:
4257:
4237:
4208:
4192:of relevance
4135:
4113:Whataboutism
4105:
4081:
4075:Godwin's law
4067:
4047:
3930:
3923:Consequences
3904:Law/Legality
3878:Single cause
3851:
3844:
3684:
3552:Loki's Wager
3532:Equivocation
3525:Equivocation
3516:
3301:
3294:
3283:. Retrieved
3279:the original
3273:
3266:
3246:
3239:
3227:. Retrieved
3222:
3200:
3193:, retrieved
3187:
3177:
3159:
3150:
3142:
3135:. Retrieved
3121:
3111:
3102:
3094:
3087:. Retrieved
3081:
3068:
3060:whataboutery
3059:
3057:
3050:, retrieved
3046:the original
3035:
3026:
3016:
2993:. Retrieved
2983:
2973:
2947:
2912:
2908:
2878:
2874:
2849:. Retrieved
2844:
2799:
2764:
2760:
2735:
2728:
2718:
2688:
2681:
2671:
2634:
2630:
2620:
2608:. Retrieved
2604:
2547:
2527:
2501:(1): 41–70.
2498:
2494:
2451:. Retrieved
2447:
2404:. Retrieved
2400:
2376:
2356:
2326:. Retrieved
2322:
2283:. Retrieved
2278:
2176:
2172:
2147:
2047:
2038:
2034:
2033:, therefore
2030:
2029:has feature
2026:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2006:
1998:
1993:
1988:
1982:
1970:Whataboutism
1959:
1953:
1952:
1940:
1929:
1921:
1903:
1902:
1892:
1887:
1883:
1879:distributive
1878:
1874:
1864:
1860:
1845:
1842:
1833:
1826:
1816:
1810:
1808:
1783:
1770:
1759:
1754:
1748:
1742:
1740:
1730:
1720:
1705:
1703:
1692:
1689:
1680:deductivists
1679:
1677:
1660:
1649:formal logic
1640:
1639:
1624:
1622:
1613:
1611:
1606:
1602:
1599:modus ponens
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:modus ponens
1576:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1554:
1545:
1541:
1531:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1465:
1456:
1448:
1439:
1435:
1429:
1382:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1360:
1348:
1347:
1228:Glossophobia
1200:
1119:Constitutive
1078:
1068:
1058:
1048:
1038:
1028:
1018:
1008:
998:
988:
978:
968:
958:
948:
938:
928:
918:
908:
898:
888:
878:
702:Rhetoricians
615:Stump speech
532:Invitational
485:
470:Dissoi logoi
468:
447:Deliberative
439:Controversia
437:
400:
393:
367:
360:
353:
326:
319:
307:Pronuntiatio
305:
298:
291:
284:
277:
248:
236:
224:
215:
198:
191:
174:
145:
107:Ancient Rome
4395:Information
4306:Red herring
4063:Association
3744:Conjunction
3665:Composition
3562:Reification
3478:Existential
3430:Existential
3074:Zimmer, Ben
2601:"Fallacies"
2319:"Fallacies"
2275:"Fallacies"
1871:composition
1308:Wooden iron
1268:Rhetrickery
1243:Oral skills
1179:Composition
1114:Contrastive
934:(c. 350 BC)
924:(c. 350 BC)
914:(c. 350 BC)
904:(c. 350 BC)
894:(c. 370 BC)
754:Demosthenes
734:Brueggemann
669:Ideological
520:Homiletics
433:Declamation
423:Apologetics
273:Five canons
141:Renaissance
124:Middle Ages
4364:Categories
4282:Moralistic
4216:Sealioning
4210:Ad nauseam
4137:Ipse dixit
4049:Ad hominem
3873:Regression
3675:Ecological
3488:Four terms
3406:Masked man
3285:2021-03-22
3229:21 January
2995:2022-05-06
2077:References
2015:the target
2011:the source
1961:Ad hominem
1875:collective
1700:Dialogical
1164:Technology
1154:Procedural
974:(c. 50 BC)
960:De Oratore
824:Quintilian
819:Protagoras
674:Metaphoric
598:Propaganda
481:Epideictic
395:Sotto voce
349:Persuasion
344:Operations
286:Dispositio
182:Chironomia
4385:Fallacies
4375:Arguments
4323:Straw man
4201:Arguments
4190:fallacies
4164:Tradition
4154:Etymology
4126:Authority
4107:Tu quoque
4091:Bulverism
3861:Gambler's
3830:Animistic
3774:Ambiguity
3740:Base rate
3483:Necessity
3355:fallacies
3250:. Wiley.
2887:1069-7977
2800:Fallacies
2781:124311289
2651:144781912
2193:126269789
1974:hypocrisy
1737:Epistemic
1727:tu quoque
1713:. On his
1447:. In the
1278:Seduction
1109:Cognitive
1097:Subfields
1024:(100–400)
779:Isocrates
719:Augustine
709:Aristotle
684:Narrative
634:Criticism
579:Philippic
493:Panegyric
476:Elocution
457:Dialectic
377:Situation
238:Facilitas
232:Enthymeme
211:Eloquence
193:Delectare
4405:Rhetoric
4349:Category
3981:Ridicule
3966:Flattery
3956:Children
3853:Post hoc
3733:McNamara
3695:Accident
3670:Division
3517:Informal
3189:Newsweek
3158:(2015),
2929:31415386
2909:Synthese
2851:20 March
2610:19 March
2453:20 March
2406:20 March
2328:19 March
2285:18 March
2055:See also
1915:and the
1832:What is
1512:division
1468:argument
1452:approach
1450:Bayesian
1411:and the
1397:division
1353:argument
1149:Pedagogy
1129:Feminist
900:Rhetoric
890:Phaedrus
884:(380 BC)
834:Richards
804:Perelman
652:Pentadic
647:Dramatic
591:Suasoria
569:Diatribe
510:Forensic
487:Encomium
452:Demagogy
321:Imitatio
293:Elocutio
279:Inventio
249:Informal
168:Concepts
95:Sophists
90:Calliope
80:Atticism
75:Asianism
43:Rhetoric
35:a series
33:Part of
4168:Novelty
4143:Poverty
4005:Loyalty
3971:Novelty
3948:Emotion
3897:Appeals
3866:Inverse
3846:Cum hoc
3835:Furtive
3353:Common
3089:22 July
3052:21 July
2066:Fallacy
2003:analogy
1625:context
1614:content
1605:" and "
1565:context
1561:content
1526:or the
1496:context
1492:content
1484:context
1480:content
1373:context
1369:content
1194:Related
1169:Therapy
1159:Science
1124:Digital
1004:(c. 50)
994:(46 BC)
984:(46 BC)
964:(55 BC)
954:(80 BC)
944:(84 BC)
880:Gorgias
849:Toulmin
844:Tacitus
794:McLuhan
769:Gorgias
764:Erasmus
759:Derrida
724:Bakhtin
714:Aspasia
679:Mimesis
642:Cluster
574:Eristic
564:Polemic
559:Oratory
537:Lecture
300:Memoria
244:Fallacy
187:Decorum
134:Trivium
62:History
4253:Cliché
4188:Other
4159:Nature
4147:Wealth
3782:Accent
3368:Formal
3309:
3254:
3195:3 July
3166:
3137:20 May
2927:
2885:
2815:
2779:
2649:
2531:. Upa.
2380:. Upa.
2191:
1911:, the
1877:and a
1567:. The
1530:. The
1522:, the
1518:, the
1514:, the
1506:, the
1502:, the
1407:, the
1403:, the
1399:, the
1391:, the
1387:, the
1377:appear
1253:Pistis
1248:Orator
1174:Visual
1084:(1970)
1074:(1966)
1064:(1521)
1054:(1305)
990:Orator
930:Topics
859:Weaver
789:Lysias
784:Lucian
774:Hobbes
749:de Man
744:Cicero
542:Public
525:Sermon
500:Eulogy
428:Debate
416:Genres
362:Pathos
328:Kairos
315:Hypsos
261:Scheme
226:Eunoia
206:Device
200:Docere
4015:Spite
3909:Stone
2925:S2CID
2777:S2CID
2647:S2CID
2189:S2CID
2001:. An
1834:light
1827:light
1780:Types
1585:then
1563:, or
1044:(426)
1034:(102)
872:Works
839:Smith
829:Ramus
814:Plato
809:Pizan
739:Burke
729:Booth
664:Genre
659:Frame
402:Topos
387:Grand
382:Style
369:Logos
355:Ethos
339:Modes
266:Trope
4101:Tone
3976:Pity
3961:Fear
3359:list
3307:ISBN
3252:ISBN
3231:2021
3197:2017
3164:ISBN
3139:2017
3091:2017
3054:2017
2883:ISSN
2853:2021
2813:ISBN
2612:2021
2455:2021
2408:2021
2330:2021
2287:2021
2025:and
1987:the
1869:and
1865:The
1846:The
1760:The
1704:The
1643:are
1623:The
1612:The
1569:form
1557:form
1510:and
1494:and
1488:form
1476:form
1395:and
1371:and
1361:form
1218:Doxa
1014:(95)
854:Vico
603:Spin
3420:In
3376:In
3132:NPR
2917:doi
2913:152
2805:doi
2769:doi
2639:doi
2503:doi
2181:doi
1980:.
1667:or
1655:or
1609:".
1482:or
1470:in
1355:in
1293:TED
1139:New
799:Ong
4366::
4284:/
4166:/
4145:/
3993:/
3911:/
3742:/
3605:/
3601:/
3580:/
3221:.
3209:^
3199:,
3186:,
3141:.
3130:.
3110:,
3093:.
3080:.
3056:,
3040:,
3034:,
3004:^
2957:^
2937:^
2923:.
2911:.
2907:.
2895:^
2881:.
2879:28
2877:.
2873:.
2861:^
2843:.
2827:^
2811:.
2789:^
2775:.
2765:21
2763:.
2759:.
2745:^
2698:^
2659:^
2645:.
2635:27
2633:.
2629:.
2603:.
2557:^
2537:^
2517:^
2499:24
2497:.
2493:.
2463:^
2446:.
2416:^
2399:.
2386:^
2366:^
2338:^
2321:.
2295:^
2277:.
2201:^
2187:.
2177:11
2175:.
2171:.
2157:^
2085:^
1922:A
1919:.
1784:A
1559:,
1478:,
37:on
3361:)
3357:(
3346:e
3339:t
3332:v
3315:.
3288:.
3260:.
3233:.
3020:.
2998:.
2977:.
2951:.
2931:.
2919::
2889:.
2855:.
2821:.
2807::
2783:.
2771::
2722:.
2653:.
2641::
2614:.
2551:.
2511:.
2505::
2457:.
2410:.
2360:.
2332:.
2289:.
2195:.
2183::
2039:F
2035:b
2031:F
2027:a
2023:b
2019:a
1607:q
1603:p
1595:q
1591:p
1587:q
1583:p
1337:e
1330:t
1323:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.