Fallacies Flashcards

1
Q

affirming the consequence

A

even if both premises are true, they do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

petitio principii

A

begging the question, tactic of assuming what you need to prove

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

ad hominem

A

instead of criticising claim, criticise person making it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

equivocation

A

same term is used variably in different parts of the argument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

post hoc, ergo propter hoc

A

‘correlation does not imply causation’, inferring that something is responsible for something else because the former precedes the latter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

retrodiction

A

reasoning from the present to the past

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

direct inference

A

reasoning from populations to samples

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

induction-to-causes

A

reasoning from effects to causes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

induction-to-unobservables

A

reasoning from observables to unobservables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

instance-to-the-next-instance

A

reasoning from one or more observed instances to the next instance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

enumerative induction

A

reasoning from one or more particular instances to all instances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

disjunction introduction

A

A, therefore A or B

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

conjunction elimination

A

A and B, therefore A

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

disjunction elimination

A

A or B, not A therefore B

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what do truth tables show?

A

validity and consistency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

a posteriori

A

knowledge based on facts/past events

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

modus tollens

A

if A then B, not B therefore not A

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

modus ponens

A

if A then B, A therefore B

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

reductio ad absurdum

A

proposition disproved by following implications to logically absurd conlusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

negation elimination

A

removes double negatives

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

contraposition

A

if A then B, not A therefore not B

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

necessary condition

A

something which must be present for another condition to occur

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

sufficient condition

A

something which produces said condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

conditional proof

A

something which proves if A then B

25
Q

reasoning by contradiction

A

proves proposition by showing that assuming proposition is false leads to contradiction

26
Q

circular reasoning

A

fallacy in which reasoning begins with what are trying to end with

27
Q

law of non-contradiction

A

contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time

28
Q

logical equivalence

A

two statements with the same truth values for every intrepretation

29
Q

synthetic statements

A

opposite of analytic, any statement which cannot be determined by linguistic meaning alone

30
Q

even if both premises are true, they do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion

A

affirming the consequence

31
Q

begging the question, tactic of assuming what you need to prove

A

petitio principii

32
Q

instead of criticising claim, criticise person making it

A

ad hominem

33
Q

same term is used variably in different parts of the argument

A

equivocation

34
Q

‘correlation does not imply causation’, inferring that something is responsible for something else because the former precedes the latter

A

post hoc, ergo propter hoc

35
Q

reasoning from the present to the past

A

retrodiction

36
Q

reasoning from populations to samples

A

direct inference

37
Q

reasoning from effects to causes

A

induction-to-causes

38
Q

reasoning from observables to unobservables

A

induction-to-unobservables

39
Q

reasoning from one or more observed instances to the next instance

A

instance-to-the-next-instance

40
Q

reasoning from one or more particular instances to all instances

A

enumerative induction

41
Q

A, therefore A or B

A

disjunction introduction

42
Q

A and B, therefore A

A

conjunction elimination

43
Q

A or B, not A therefore B

A

disjunction elimination

44
Q

validity and consistency

A

what do truth tables show?

45
Q

knowledge based on facts/past events

A

a posteriori

46
Q

if A then B, not B therefore not A

A

modus tollens

47
Q

if A then B, A therefore B

A

modus ponens

48
Q

proposition disproved by following implications to logically absurd conlusion

A

reductio ad absurdum

49
Q

removes double negatives

A

negation elimination

50
Q

if A then B, not A therefore not B

A

contraposition

51
Q

something which must be present for another condition to occur

A

necessary condition

52
Q

something which produces said condition

A

sufficient condition

53
Q

something which proves if A then B

A

conditional proof

54
Q

proves proposition by showing that assuming proposition is false leads to contradiction

A

reasoning by contradiction

55
Q

fallacy in which reasoning begins with what are trying to end with

A

circular reasoning

56
Q

contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time

A

law of non-contradiction

57
Q

two statements with the same truth values for every intrepretation

A

logical equivalence

58
Q

opposite of analytic, any statement which cannot be determined by linguistic meaning alone

A

synthetic statements