Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic ...
Logical reasoning is concerned with the correctness of arguments. A key distinction is between deductive and non-deductive arguments. Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion ...
The person making the argument expects that the listener will accept the provided definition, making the argument difficult to refute. [18] Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – arguing that, because something is so phenomenal or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency. [19]
In LA, arguments for and arguments against a proposition are distinct; an argument for a proposition contributes nothing to the case against it, and vice versa. Among other things, this means that LA can support contradiction – proof that an argument is true and that it is false. Arguments supporting the case for and arguments supporting the ...
Argumentum a fortiori (literally "argument from the stronger [reason]") (UK: / ˈ ɑː f ɔːr t i ˈ oʊ r i /, US: / ˈ eɪ f ɔːr ʃ i ˈ ɔːr aɪ /) is a form of argumentation that draws upon existing confidence in a proposition to argue in favor of a second proposition that is held to be implicit in, and even more certain than, the first.
In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion ( Latin: petītiō principiī) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not ...
The person–situation debate in personality psychology refers to the controversy concerning whether the person or the situation is more influential in determining a person's behavior. Personality trait psychologists believe that a person's personality is relatively consistent across situations. [1] Situationists, opponents of the trait ...
Reductio ad absurdum, painting by John Pettie exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1884. In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or apagogical arguments, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.