Editing Fallacy (section)

{{Short description|Argument that uses faulty reasoning}}
{{Redirect|Logical error|logical errors in data storage|Data integrity#Logical integrity}}
{{Rhetoric}}

A '''fallacy''' is the use of [[Validity (logic)|invalid]] or otherwise faulty [[reason]]ing in the construction of an [[argument]]<ref name="GenslerAZ">{{Cite book |last=Gensler |first=Harry J. |title=The A to Z of Logic |date=2010 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=978-0810875968 |page=74}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Woods |first=John |title=The Death of Argument |date=2004 |isbn=978-9048167005 |series=Applied Logic Series |volume=32 |pages=3–23 |chapter=Who Cares About the Fallacies? |doi=10.1007/978-1-4020-2712-3_1 |author-link=John Woods (logician)}}</ref> that may appear to be well-reasoned if unnoticed. The term was introduced in the Western intellectual tradition by the [[Aristotle|Aristotelian]] ''[[Sophistical Refutations|De Sophisticis Elenchis]]''.<ref name="Downden" /> 

Fallacies may be committed intentionally to [[Psychological manipulation|manipulate]] or [[Persuasion|persuade]] by [[deception]], unintentionally because of human limitations such as [[carelessness]], [[Biases in judgment and decision making|cognitive or social biases]] and [[ignorance]], or potentially due to the limitations of language and understanding of language. These delineations include not only the ignorance of the right [[Psychology of reasoning|reasoning standard]] but also the ignorance of relevant properties of the [[Context (language use)|context]]. For instance, the [[soundness]] of [[legal argument]]s depends on the context in which they are made.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Argument types and fallacies in legal argumentation |date=2015 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-319-16147-1 |editor-last=Bustamente |editor-first=Thomas |location=Heidelberg |page=x |editor-last2=Dahlman |editor-first2=Christian}}</ref>

Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". A [[formal fallacy]] is a flaw in the structure of a [[deductive reasoning|deductive]] [[logical argument|argument]] that renders the argument invalid, while an [[informal fallacy]] originates in an error in reasoning other than an improper [[logical form]].<ref name="garns">{{Cite web |last=Garns |first=Rudy |date=1997 |title=Informal Fallacies |url=http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt3_2.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170201173411/http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt3_2.html |archive-date=2017-02-01 |access-date=2013-09-10 |publisher=Northern Kentucky University}}</ref> Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally [[Validity (logic)|valid]], but still fallacious.<ref name="Downden">{{Cite web |last=Dowden |first=Bradley |title=Fallacy |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy |access-date=17 February 2016 |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>

A special case is a [[mathematical fallacy]], an intentionally invalid [[mathematical proof]] with a concealed, or subtle, error. Mathematical fallacies are typically crafted and exhibited for educational purposes, usually taking the form of false proofs of obvious [[contradiction]]s.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Mathematical Fallacies |url=https://brilliant.org/wiki/mathematical-fallacies/ |access-date=4 February 2023 |website=brilliant.org}}</ref>