History Fallacy
Fallacy - a false conclusion, which, however, when considering the surface seems to be right.
Fallacy is based on the deliberate, conscious violation of rules of logic. This distinguishes it from paralogizma and Apor, which may contain unintentional errors or do not have a logical error, but the cause is clearly wrong conclusion.
Aristotle called the sophistries maginary evidence in which the validity of the conclusion seems to be purely subjective and is bound impression caused by the inadequacy of the logical or semantic analysis. Credibility at first glance many of the sophistries, the ̬ogic۠is usually associated with well-disguised mistake - semiotics: from metaphorical speech omonimii or polysemy of words, amphiboles, etc., violate the unambiguity of thought and lead to confusion of terms or logical: phish main idea (thesis) evidence, the adoption of false premises for the real, non-compliance with the allowable methods of reasoning (of a logical conclusion), the use of ̯utstanding۠or even ̰rohibited۠or rules of action, such as division by zero in mathematical fallacy (last error can be considered, and semiotic as it relates to an agreement on ̣orrectly constructed formulas.
Here is one of the old sophistries ( orned, attributed Evbulidu: that have you lost, you have. Horn you are not lost. So, you have a horn It masquerades ambiguity more parcels. If it is conceived universal: ́ll that you have not lost ... then the conclusion is logically perfect, but uninteresting, because it is obvious that a great premise false, but if it is conceived to private, the conclusion should not be logical. The latter, however, became known only after Aristotle formulated logic.
Here is a modern fallacy, justifying that with age ̹ears۬ not only seem, but actually is shorter:
̅very year of your life - it is 1 / n, where n - number of years you have lived. But n + 1> n. Consequently, 1 / (n + 1) <1 / n
Historically, the notion of consistently associated the idea of deliberate tampering with the recognition Protagora that sophist task - to present a worst-case argument as the best, by cunning tricks of speech, discussion, taking care not about truth, and the success of the dispute or of practical benefit. (We know that he himself was a victim of Protagor. With the same idea is usually attributed and test of reason formulated Protagorom: the view of rights is a measure of truth. Even Plato said that the authority should not be in the subjective will of man, or will have to recognize the legitimacy of contradictions (which, by the way, and claimed sophist), and therefore any judgments be justified. This idea was developed by Plato in Aristotle principle neprotivorechiya(see Logical Act) and, in modern logic - in the interpretation and requirements of evidence ̡bsolute۠ consistency. Transferred from the field of pure logic in the area of actual truths it has created a special day of thinking ignoring the dialectics ̩nterval situations that is, situations in which the criterion Protagora, understood, however, more widely as the relativity of truth to the conditions and means of its knowledge, is very significant. That is why many considerations leading to the paradox and the rest of perfection, are classified as sophistries, although in essence they only show the interval of the associated Epistemological situations. Thus, the fallacy( one grain - not a pile. If n grains are not a heap, then n + 1 grains - do not pile. Therefore, any number of seeds - do not piles - this is just one of the transitivity paradoxes resulting in a situation of invisibility. The latter is a typical example of an interval a situation in which the property of transitivity of equality in the transition from a interval invisibility to another, generally speaking, is not preserved, and therefore the principle of mathematical induction is not applicable in such situations. The desire to see this as an inherent experience intolerable contradiction۬ which is the mathematical idea vercomes in the abstract concept of numerical continuum (H. Poincare), is not justified, however, the general proof removable this kind of situation in the field of mathematical thinking and experience. Suffice it to say that the description and the practice of so important in this regard the laws of identity(equity) as well, generally speaking, as in empirical science, depends on the meaning of the expression the same object۬ which means or criteria of identification with this benefit. In other words, whether they are mathematical objects, or, for example, about the objects of quantum mechanics, the answers to the question of identity linked to the fatal intaerval situations. This is not always a given solution of the question ̩nside۠the interval invisibility can be contrasted to the decision of over the interval۬ that is to replace the abstraction of invisibility abstraction identification. And only in this latter case, and we can talk about ̣oping۠contradiction.
It seems that the first who understood the importance of semiotic analysis sophistries, were the sophist. The teachings of the speech, about the correct use of names Prodikos consider important. Analysis and examples sophistries are frequent in the dialogues of Plato. Aristotle wrote a special book on sophistical refutation۬ a mathematician Euclid - sevdary- a kind of catalog of the sophistries of geometric proofs.