Główna zawartość
Kurs: Wi-Phi, czyli filozofia dostępna dla wszystkich > Rozdział 1
Lekcja 2: Błędy logiczne- Fallacies: Formal and Informal Fallacies
- Formal and Informal Fallacies
- Fallacies: Fallacy of Composition
- Fallacies: Fallacy of Division
- Division and Composition
- Fallacies: Introduction to Ad Hominem
- Fallacies: Ad Hominem
- Ad Hominem, Part 1
- Ad Hominem, Part 2
- Fallacies: Affirming the Consequent
- Fallacies: Denying the Antecedent
- Denying the Antecedent and Affirming the Consequent
- Fallacies: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- Fallacies: Appeal to the People
- Fallacies: Begging the Question
- Begging the Question
- Fallacies: Equivocation
- Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy
- Fallacies: Slippery Slope
- Fallacies: Red Herring
© 2024 Khan AcademyWarunki użytkowaniapolitykę prywatnościInformacja o plikach cookie
Fallacies: Affirming the Consequent
In this video, Matthew C. Harris explains the fallacy of affirming the consequent, the formal fallacy that arises from inferring the converse of an argument. He also explains why you sometimes cannot conclude that you should bathe in a tub of peanut butter.
Speaker: Matthew C. Harris, Duke University. Stworzone przez: Gaurav Vazirani.
Speaker: Matthew C. Harris, Duke University. Stworzone przez: Gaurav Vazirani.
Chcesz dołączyć do dyskusji?
Na razie brak głosów w dyskusji