Difference between revisions of "Logical fallacy templates"

Revision as of 22:51, 27 June 2017 (view source) RogerNicholson (talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 16:22, 10 June 2018 (view source) RogerNicholson (talk | contribs) Newer edit →
Line 32:		Line 32:
	[[pt:Predefinição Falácia Lógica]]		[[pt:Predefinição Falácia Lógica]]
		+	[[es:plantillas lógicas de falacia]]

---

Revision as of 16:22, 10 June 2018

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Logical Fallacy Templates

{{appeal to authority}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to authority—The author claims that someone is an authority on a topic, and that because this authority made a statement regarding that topic, that he or she is probably correct.

{{ad hominem}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Ad Hominem—The author attacks someone's personal characteristics in an attempt to undermine their argument or position.

{{appeal to emotion}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.

{{appeal to probability}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Probability—The author assumes that because something is theoretically possible that it is therefore inevitably true.

{{appeal to ridicule}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule—The author is presenting the argument in such a way that it makes his or her subject look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or exaggerating it.

{{argument from silence}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Argument from Silence—The author has formed a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than on their actual presence.

{{bandwagon}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.

{{begging the question}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question—The author presents a circular argument in which the starting assumption requires the conclusion to be true.

{{black or white}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Black-or-White—The author presents two alternative states as the only two possibilities, when more possibilities exist.

{{burden of proof}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Burden of Proof—The author assumes that the burden of proof is not his or her responsibility, but rather the responsibility of someone else who must disprove the claim.

{{composition}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Composition—The author assumes that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

{{composition-division}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Composition/Division—The author assumed that one part of something had to be applied to everything.

{{contextomy}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Contextomy (Citing out of context)—The author has created a false attribution in which he or she removed a passage by an authority from its surrounding context in such a way as to distort or reverse its intended meaning.

{{false cause}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: False Cause—The author assumes that a real or perceived relationship between two events means that one caused the other.

{{genetic}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Genetic—The author determines whether something is truthful or false on the basis of who said it.

{{inconsistency}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Inconsistency—The author applies contradictory standards, depending upon which group he is addressing.

{{loaded question}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Loaded Question—The author asks a question that has a presumption already built into it in such a way that an answer cannot be provided without validating that presumption.

{{personal incredulity}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Argument from Ignorance—The author has difficulty understanding the topic, so he or she assumes that it simply must not have any validity.

{{special pleading}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading—The author creates a one-sided argument by including favorable data and excluding unfavorable data through improper means. In this case, the author "moved the goalpost" by changing his argument when his original claim was shown to be false.

{{texas sharpshooter}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter—The author located some pattern in the data that he or she believes was the cause of something else, despite the lack of any supporting connection, and asserted that this was, in fact, the actual cause.

{{tu quoque}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.

{{strawman}} edit:

Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.