Talk:False attribution

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

The link to my blog was given as I and my co-author coined the term as an informal fallacy.

The blog is secondary to the text book on fallacies I co-wrote. The book itself, is where the term False Attribution was coined as an informal fallacy, as far as I am able to tell.. I guess actually researching something does take time. If you think the entire fallacy is worth removing, then go for it. However, I feel it is a highly valuable term, as there is no other fallacy completely synonymous with it (which is why we coined it). Clark 04:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also - why remove links to any site that has examples? Surely it is up to the reader (within reason) to decide whether they want to follow an external link? One of the main reasons I search for information on Wikipedia is for the external links (which are often more useful than ones linked to from google et. al.). I’d wager I’m not in the minority in doing this…Clark 04:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo Clark (talk • contribs)

My co-author, Jef Clark, is an acedemic a Griffith University whose primary research area is fallacies and informal logic. A reasonable claim to expertise.

Why were the other examples removed capriciously? Why have less content (in a fairly small page)? The George Bush example is a classic and frequent false attribution. Clark 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Equivocation?

I see that this fallacy is identified as a kind of equivocation in the info box. How on earth do we justify this? Phiwum (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you (I can't see the relevance to Fallacy of quoting out of context either), but the correct forum for raising this issue is Template talk:Informal Fallacy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

krátos, κράτος doesn't only mean state, it means also power (that's a more ancient etymon)

teleocracy, telocracy (in philosophy, here not the political science term) Belief that purpose is the superior value, criterion and (in Aristotelianism) moving force (if something is movable) of everything, which is self-evident and always present.
personocracy (in philosophy, here not the political science term) Belief that personhood and at least one person (bearer of it) are the most important factors within some or all concepts.
partial and fragmented personocracy (in philosophy, here not the political science term) Belief that personhood either expressed wholly in a person or persons, either partially (with parts of its definition) is playing a causal role in all actions; either during the start, or the duration, or the final destination of an event of hypothesized causal correlation (physical or mental). It is a bias when there is no proof of attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4105:1056:9997:B9B5:B791:D418 (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]