He then divided the logical group into two groups: purely logical and semi-logical. The semi-logical group included all of Aristotle's sophisms except:ignoratio elenchi, petitio principii, and non causa pro causa, which are in the material group.
|
|
6, p.57; and Bruce Pourciau, "On Newton's proof that inverse-square orbits must be conics", Annals of Science 48 (1991) 159–172; but the point was disagreed by R. Weinstock, who called it a 'petitio principii', see e.g. "Newton's Principia and inverse-square orbits: the flaw reexamined", Historia Math. 19(1) (1992), pp.60–70.
|
|
Sohn-Rethel received his doctorate with the Austrian Marxist Emil Lederer in 1928.Von der Analytik des Wirtschaftcns zur Theorie der Volkswirtschaft: Methodologische Untersuchung mit besonderem Bezug auf die Theorie Schumpeters, 1928. Published 1936. In his thesis he criticized the theory of marginal utility as a petitio principii because it implies the notion of number implicitly.
|
|
The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham compiled enlightenment beliefs in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, and he included his own reasoning in a comparison between slavery and sadism toward animals: In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies (unless the distinction is factual, in which case the appeal is just one logical fallacy, petitio principii). Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity—high intelligence; highly complex language; etc.—are not present in marginal cases such as mute humans, young children, deaf humans, and mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which animal-rights supporters call speciesism—that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human. His opponents accuse him of the same petitio principii.
|
|
This claim however, cannot be defended logically as it commits the petitio principii fallacy of assuming, without adequate justification, the conclusion it is supposed to defend. However, while admitting circularity within the argument (in that "miracle arguments" seek to justify scientific "inference to the best explanation" by use of an inference to the best explanation), Musgrave defends his stance as one making a conclusion about rational belief rather than truth. Because he makes this distinction about knowing for certain that a theory is right, and reasonably believing that a theory is right, he evades many classical objections to realism.
|
|
Their assumptions are the starting point for presenting quotes which superficially sound the same, without a thorough and careful analysis of these quotes and their context; # Perennialists are hermenuetically naive. They merely "divine" the experiences on which these texts are supposedly based, without a proper philosophical or methodological argument for the move from text to the postulated experience behind it. Forman has criticised the constructivist stance, specifically criticising Katz article Language, Epistemology and Mysticism (1978). According to Forman, Katz commits the fallacy of petitio principii, that is, making a statement without providing evidence, but only providing arguments.
|
|
A part of Khayyam's commentary on Euclid's Elements deals with the parallel axiom. The treatise of Khayyam can be considered the first treatment of the axiom not based on petitio principii, but on a more intuitive postulate. Khayyam refutes the previous attempts by other mathematicians to prove the proposition, mainly on grounds that each of them had postulated something that was by no means easier to admit than the Fifth Postulate itself. Drawing upon Aristotle's views, he rejects the usage of movement in geometry and therefore dismisses the different attempt by Al- Haytham.. Excerpt: In some sense, his treatment was better than ibn al- Haytham's because he explicitly formulated a new postulate to replace Euclid's rather than have the latter hidden in a new definition.
|
|
Twining argues that a close Wigmorean analysis allows for the following conclusions: 'For example, the judge's suggestion can be attacked on the following grounds: 1\. it is sheer speculation, with no evidence to support it; 2\. it involves a petitio principii in that it assumes what is seeks to prove; 3\. it does not make sense of the passage: ‘Don’t forget what we talked in the Tea Room [about whether to use poison or a dagger], I’ll still risk and try if you will we have only 3 1/2 years left darlingest.’Twining, p. 365 Twining continues with 'Even if we totally discount testimony of both accused that it referred to eloping (the ‘risks’ being financial and/or of social stigma), the context of the letter as a whole and the words ‘3 1/2 years left’ both tend to support the judgement that an innocent explanation is a good deal more likely than the prosecution's interpretation. At the, very least, such factors seem to me to cast a reasonable doubt on that interpretation, yet this passage was the main item of evidence in support of the conspiracy theory.
|
|
Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally. In any context, including academic debate, a conversation among friends, political discourse, advertising, or for comedic purposes, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true. Examples of this include the speaker or writer: # Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi) # Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem) # Assume the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called "begging the question" (petitio principii) # Making jumps in logic (non sequitur) # Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc) # Asserting that everyone agrees (argumentum ad populum, bandwagoning) # Creating a "false dilemma" ("either-or fallacy") in which the situation is oversimplified # Selectively using facts (card stacking) # Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and false analogy) # Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization) In humor, errors of reasoning are used for comical purposes. Groucho Marx used fallacies of amphiboly, for instance, to make ironic statements; Gary Larson and Scott Adams employed fallacious reasoning in many of their cartoons.
|
|