 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Is it correct to use this phrase for the (very common) converse, arguing that an opponent is wrong because it is rich? Securiger 09:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No, it it's called argumentum ad crumenam. 72.139.119.165 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
2007-01-31 Automated pywikipediabot message
edit | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
examples
editIt seems to me that the second through fourth examples are poor ones.
"The homeless tell us it’s hard to find housing. Thus it must be."
This is a poor basis for asserting a certainty, but it seems that its argument could be called an "Argument from Experience" (if such exists). Even as such it is flawed, as the homeless are not the only group with experience, but it does not seem to be crediting them with authority due to poverty - only due to experience.
"The monks have forsworn all material possessions. They must have achieved enlightenment."
In a Buddhist definition, enlightenment involves detachment from worldly desires. (Also, again the observation does not lead to certainty.) Within a Buddhist paradigm it seems that it is simply attributing an observation to a state which contains a defining element that seems to possibly have causal relationship to the thing observed.
"All you need to know about the civil war in that country is that the rebels live in mud huts, while the general who sends troops against them sits in a luxurious, air-conditioned office."
Is this Argumentum ad Lazarum, or is it Argumentum ad Crumenam? It seems to advise no further examination, which is perhaps unreasonable in itself, but it could spin either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druthulhu (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)