Logical fallacy in the context of "Premise"

⭐ In the context of logical arguments, assuming a conclusion is false solely because one of the premises is false is considered…

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Logical fallacy

In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning with a flaw in its logical structure (the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion). In other words:

  • It is a pattern of reasoning in which the conclusion may not be true even if all the premises are true.
  • It is a pattern of reasoning in which the premises do not entail the conclusion.
  • It is a pattern of reasoning that is invalid.
  • It is a fallacy in which deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process.

A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false. A formal fallacy, however, may have a true premise, but a false conclusion. The term 'logical fallacy' is sometimes used in everyday conversation, and refers to a formal fallacy.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 Logical fallacy in the context of Premise

A premise or premiss is a proposition—a true or false declarative statement—used in an argument to prove the truth of another proposition called the conclusion. Arguments consist of a set of premises and a conclusion.

An argument is meaningful for its conclusion only when all of its premises are true. If one or more premises are false, the argument says nothing about whether the conclusion is true or false. For instance, a false premise on its own does not justify rejecting an argument's conclusion; to assume otherwise is a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent. One way to prove that a proposition is false is to formulate a sound argument with a conclusion that negates that proposition.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Logical fallacy in the context of Map–territory relation

The map–territory relation is the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. Mistaking the map for the territory is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone confuses the semantics of a term with what it represents. Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that "the map is not the territory" and that "the word is not the thing", encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse conceptual models of reality with reality itself. These ideas are crucial to general semantics, a system Korzybski originated.

The relationship has also been expressed in other terms, such as "the model is not the data", "all models are wrong", and Alan Watts's "The menu is not the meal." The concept is thus quite relevant throughout ontology and applied ontology regardless of any connection to general semantics per se (or absence thereof). Its avatars are thus encountered in semantics, statistics, logistics, business administration, semiotics, and many other applications.

↑ Return to Menu
LINKED FROM (PARENTS)
← Premise ← Map–territory relation
LINKS TO (CHILDREN)
Logic → Philosophical logic → Reason → Premise → Entailment → Validity (logic) → Fallacy → Deductive reasoning → Informal fallacy → Logical form → Soundness →