3 ms·
The website says, at the top: "[phrase] is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the stateme
by waterhouse 6y ago
The website says, at the top: "[phrase] is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself."
Since the speaker is attempting to provide evidence for a "statement or claim", we could say that, if the argument were correct, then that "statement or claim" would be the conclusion. Therefore, we can substitute "conclusion" for "statement or claim", and get: "[phrase] is a form of logical fallacy in which a conclusion is assumed to be true without evidence other than the conclusion itself." Therefore, "assuming the conclusion" is a very appropriate name for the thing they're talking about.
The "assuming the truth of one or more premises" you talk about, where those premises are different from the conclusion, seems like a different type of fallacy than what this website is talking about.
- mannykannot 6y agoAssuming the truth of one or more premises is not a fallacy; it is just what one does in any argument. If your argument is valid (i.e., if the premises are true, then the conclusion must follow), it can still be shown to be unsound by showing that one or more of its premises are, in fact, false. And while we often hold that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it is not a formal fallacy to state an extraordinary premise without adequate justification. Whether you can get anyone to accept it is another matter. It is generally easier if you can find someone who likes your conclusion, which is how most political debate works.