Question

Guten morgan!!❤

⏩ What do you mean by Aristotle fallacy??​

Answer 1

hey dear❤❤

Aristotles fallacy is that he was a mental spectular with no authority beyond his own mind. Aristotle was no doubt a brillant and thoughtful man, but at the time , regarding extential and philosophical questions of life. he have access to an authorized teacher.Nobody can know about the world and how it works by spectulating about it, or by direct observation, one needs a proper , certified teacher.

This system of learning form authority is basicially the same in any vocation. If you want to be trained up as a mathematician u learn from mathematician who has learned from another mathematician etc. If u want to be a layer , u learn from brick lay etc.

So the system of learning anything is to learn from an expert and that goes for any subject one wants to learn about.

plzz mark me as brainlist nd follow me❤❤

Answer 2

Answer:

Hey Dear!!!

Aristotle's fallacy:

Aristotle was the first to have engaged in a systematic study of logical fallacies. In his de Sophisticis Elenchis .he sketches out a general definition of logical fallacy identifies two major types of fallacy and sketches out an account of 13 of these. Aristotle may be the highest Philosopher of the Famous Ancient Greek Civilization, but his view on Reincarnation had had a Fallacy. He took it for granted that the transmigration was only that of the soul plus the intellect but not of any memory alongside. In other words, he sidelined a major portion of the Mind from the Reincarnation Theory. Aristotle, in his Sophistical Refutations (Sophistici Elenchi), identified thirteen fallacies.

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning or "wrong moves in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance, as even lawyers admit that the extent to which an argument is sound or unsound depends on the context in which the argument is made.