(Felsefe) Özelleştirme Safsatası: Genel ilke veya ifadenin istisnai durumlar için de geçerli olduğunu düşünme hatası, Aristo’un tesbit ettiği on üç orijinal safsatadan birisidir; meselâ, şehir içindeki hız sınırından çıkarak ambulansların yavaş gitmeleri gerektiği sonucuna varmak gibi; morfinin bir uyuşturucu olduğunu belirterak, hastahanelerde kullanımının yasaklanması gerektiğini savunmak gibi
(Felsefe) Genelleştirme Safsatası: Özel durumlardan, özelliği olan istisnai haller için geçerli olan kurallardan, genel ilkelere ve ifadelere sıçrama yanlısı. Düğünde atılan silâh misafirlerden birisini vurdu. "Bütün silâhlar toplanmalıdır." gibi
Kıyas-ı batıl yada mantık hatası: bir düşünceyi ortaya koyarken ya da anlamaya çalışırken yapılan yanlış çıkarsamadır. Safsatalar ilk bakışta geçerli ve ikna edici gibi görülebilen fakat yakından bakıldığında kendilerini ele veren sahte argümanlardır
the fallacy, most often believed by gamblers, that a past random event influences the outcome of a future random event, that is, that a run of even numbers at roulette means that there is a greater chance of an odd number next time
A common error in logical reasoning where an effect is attributed to an incorrect cause because the basic statistical ratios have not been taken into account
An error in logical argumentation which consists in treating inanimate objects or concepts as if they were human beings, for instance having thoughts or feelings
Kıyas-ı batıl yada mantık hatası: bir düşünceyi ortaya koyarken ya da anlamaya çalışırken yapılan yanlış çıkarsamadır. Safsatalar ilk bakışta geçerli ve ikna edici gibi görülebilen fakat yakından bakıldığında kendilerini ele veren sahte argümanlardır
A mistake in reasoning; an argument that fails to provide adequate logical support for the truth of its conclusion, yet appears convincing or persuasive in some other way Common examples include both formal fallacies (structural errors in deductive logic) and informal fallacies (efforts to persuade by non-rational appeals) Recommended Reading: Nicholas Capaldi, The Art of Deception: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (Prometheus, 1987) {at Amazon com}; T Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Wadsworth, 2000) {at Amazon com}; and Douglas Walton, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy (Alabama, 1995) {at Amazon com} Also see OCP, ColE, FF, noesis, and GLF
A fallacy is an idea which many people believe to be true, but which is in fact false because it is based on incorrect information or reasoning. It's a fallacy that the affluent give relatively more to charity than the less prosperous
A fallacy is an attractive but unreliable piece of reasoning, or argument It looks good but upon examination it turns out to be undependable They are often divided into two kinds--formal and informal Formal fallacies include affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent Informal fallacies include begging the question, composition, division, equivocation, false cause, false dichtomy, hasty generalization, personal attack, red herring, slippery slope, straw man, weak analogy There are many other examples of bad reasoning that have been identified by logicians, but these are enough to illustrate the idea of a fallacy
In philosophy, reasoning that fails to establish its conclusion because of deficiencies in form or wording. Formal fallacies are types of deductive argument that instantiate an invalid inference pattern (see deduction; validity); an example is "affirming the consequent: If A then B; B; therefore, A." Informal fallacies are types of inductive argument the premises of which fail to establish the conclusion because of their content. There are many kinds of informal fallacy; examples include argumentum ad hominem ("argument against the man"), which consists of attacking the arguer instead of his argument; the fallacy of false cause, which consists of arguing from the premise that one event precedes another to the conclusion that the first event is the cause of the second; the fallacy of composition, which consists of arguing from the premise that a part of a thing has a certain property to the conclusion that the thing itself has that property; and the fallacy of equivocation, which consists of arguing from a premise in which a term is used in one sense to a conclusion in which the term is used in another sense
Fallacy of treating the term "good" (or any equivalent term) as if it were the name of a natural property. In 1903 G.E. Moore presented in Principia Ethica his "open-question argument" against what he called the naturalistic fallacy, with the aim of proving that "good" is the name of a simple, unanalyzable quality, incapable of being defined in terms of some natural quality of the world, whether it be "pleasurable" (John Stuart Mill) or "highly evolved" (Herbert Spencer). Since Moore's argument applied to any attempt to define good in terms of something else, including something supernatural such as "what God wills," the term "naturalistic fallacy" is not apt. The open-question argument turns any proposed definition of good into a question (e.g., "Good means pleasurable" becomes "Is everything pleasurable good?") Moore's point being that the proposed definition cannot be correct, because if it were the question would be meaningless
The attribution of human emotions or characteristics to inanimate objects or to nature; for example, angry clouds; a cruel wind. the idea of describing the sea, rocks, weather etc in literature as if they were human