Formally seemingly correct, but essentially a false conclusion

First letter "s"

Second letter "o"

Third letter "f"

The last beech is the letter "m"

Answer for the clue "Formally, seemingly correct, but essentially a false conclusion", 6 letters:
sophism

Alternative questions in crossword puzzles for the word sophism

m. false reasoning, - sophistication, false conclusion, conclusion, judgment, which is given the appearance of truth

Imaginary proof

Formal reasoning

m. false reasoning, - sophistication, false conclusion, conclusion, judgment, which is given the appearance of truth. Sophist, -tka, false mind. Sophistic reasoning, false, erroneous, disguised as true

Formalism in logic

Formally seemingly correct, but essentially a false conclusion based on a deliberately incorrect selection of starting points

Word definitions for sophism in dictionaries

New explanatory and derivational dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova. The meaning of the word in the dictionary New explanatory and derivational dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova.
m. Formally seemingly correct, but essentially false conclusion, based on a deliberately incorrect selection of initial positions; misleading verbal trick.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia The meaning of the word in the dictionary Great Soviet Encyclopedia
(from the Greek sóphisma ≈ trick, trick, fiction, puzzle), a conclusion or reasoning that justifies some deliberate absurdity, absurdity or paradoxical statement that contradicts generally accepted ideas. Aristotle called S. "imaginary ...

Wikipedia The meaning of the word in the Wikipedia dictionary
Sophism: Sophism is a false statement, which, nevertheless, on the surface, seems to be correct. The sophism of Euathlus is a sophism of ancient Greek origin.

Examples of the use of the word sophism in the literature.

One may not agree with Mr. Bov, but it seems to me that I would die of boredom reading his article if he would in any way change the nature of his decrees issued by him on Russian literature: There is pleasure in the wildness of forests, Dudyshkin's articles have a spell, And instructive from prose to poetry Literary bazaars, There is rapture in sophistry Gymale, There are pearls in the maelstrom of magazines, Mil Voyskoboinikov, gathering in the darkness A great series of scandals.

Through the mouths of the witches in the judgment seat, the Evil One mocked the inquisitors, spewed such blasphemy that the hair of the most intrepid ones stood on end, and embarrassed doctors and masters of theology with intricately woven sophistry, the subtlest theological contradictions, or he denounced them with questions full of such heart-searching that the judges turned into defendants, the accused into accusers.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that this is the most subtle, gloomy and elusive sophism of all that abound in both books.

However, these naive sophistry could not hide the ugly truth: in fact, Ariston did not want to part with his life, because he was afraid of death.

In their works we find, instead of true style, true eloquence, correct reasoning and healthy criticism, only a play on words, a chatter, sophistry, incoherent theories, constantly destroying one another, and, especially, unshakable gullibility.

SOPHISM

SOPHISM

(Greek sophisma - a cunning trick, fabrication) - a reasoning that seems correct, but contains a hidden logical error and serves to give the appearance of truth to a false statement. S. is a special technique of intellectual fraud, an attempt to pass off as the truth and thereby introduce into. Hence "" in an odious meaning - this is ready with the help of any, incl. unlawful ways to defend one's beliefs, regardless of whether they are actually true or not.
Usually S. substantiates Ph.D. deliberate absurdity, or paradoxical, contrary to generally accepted ideas. An example is S. “Horned”, who became famous in ancient times: “What you have not lost, you have; you did not lose your horns; so you have horns.
Dr. examples of S. formulated again in antiquity:
“He who sits has risen; who got up, he stands; therefore, the seated one is standing”;
“But when they say “stones, logs, iron”, then after all they are silent, but they say!”;
“Do you know what I want to ask you now? - Not. "Don't you know it's wrong to lie?" - Of course I know. “But that's exactly what I was going to ask you, and you said you didn't know; so you know what you don't know."
All these and similar S. are logically incorrect reasoning, presented as correct. S. use ordinary language words, homonymy, abbreviations, etc.; often S. are based on such logical errors as the substitution of the thesis of evidence, non-compliance with the rules of logical inference, taking false premises for true, etc. Speaking about the imaginary persuasiveness, S. Seneca compared them with the art of conjurers: we cannot say how their manipulations are performed, although we firmly know that everything is done not at all as it seems to us. F. Bacon compared the one who resorts to S. with a fox that winds well, and the one who opens S. with a hound who knows how to unravel traces.
It is easy to see that in S. "Horned" the ambiguity of the expression "that which did not lose" is played up. Sometimes it means "what he had and did not lose," and sometimes simply "what he did not lose, regardless of whether he had or not." In the premise “What you did not lose, you have,” the phrase “what you did not lose” must mean “what you had and did not lose,” otherwise this one will turn out to be false. But in the second premise, this no longer works: statement"The horns are what you had and didn't lose" is false.
S. have often been used and are being used with the intent to mislead. But they also have another function, being a kind of form of awareness and verbal expression of a problem situation. G.V.F. was the first to draw attention to this feature of S. Hegel.
A number of ancient S. plays with the theme of the spasmodic nature of any change and development. Some S. raise the problem of fluidity, variability of the surrounding world and point to the difficulties associated with the identification of objects in the stream of continuous change. Often S. put in an implicit form of evidence: what is it, if you can give credibility to statements that are clearly incompatible with facts and common sense? Formulated at a time when science did not yet exist, ancient S., although indirectly, raised the question of the need for its construction. In this regard, they directly contributed to the emergence of the science of correct, evidence-based thinking.
The use of S. for the purpose of deception is an incorrect method of argumentation and is quite justifiably criticized. But this should not obscure the fact that S. is also an implicit form of problem posing, inevitable at a certain stage in the development of thinking.

Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .

SOPHISM

(from Greek- cunning trick, logically wrong (imaginary) reasoning (conclusion, proof) passed off as correct. Hence "" in an odious meaning - a person who builds false conclusions and seeks self-interest from such an imaginary argument. S. gives various examples in his dialogues Plato ("Evtidem" and others) . Logic S. and their classification was given by Aristotle in op."Oh sophistry. denials" (cm. Op., t. 2, M., 1978). An example of ancient S. is S. “Horned”: “What you have not lost, you have; you have not lost your horns; therefore, you have them.” The error here consists in the wrongful conclusion from the general rule to the particular case, which it essentially does not provide for. Common S. are, e.g., arguments built on arbitrarily chosen alternatives that are beneficial to the sophist, with the help of which, generally speaking, one can prove anything. S. is sometimes called reasoning that is essentially a paradox (e.g. "Liar", "Heap"). However, these concepts should be distinguished: in contrast to paradoxes, real logic does not appear in S. difficulties. S. arise as a result of deliberately incorrect application of logic. and semantic. rules and operations.

Jevons V. S., Elementary textbook of deductive and inductive logic, per. With English, St. Petersburg, 1881; Minto V., Deductive and , per. With English, M., 18983.

Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editors: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .

SOPHISM

(from the Greek sophisma - a cunning invention)

visibility of evidence. see also Wrong inference.

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

SOPHISM

(from Greek σόφισμα - cunning trick, fiction, false) - logically incorrect (untenable) reasoning ( conclusion, proof) masquerading as correct. Hence the "sophist" in the odious meaning - a person who is ready to use any means to defend c.-l. theses, regardless of their objective truth or falsity, which was typical for some late ancient Greek. sophists, for whom reasoning and argumentation degenerated into the art of "arguing for the sake of arguing." A variety of examples S. cites in his dialogues Plato ("Eutidem" and others). Logic S. analysis gave Aristotle in Op. "Refutation of sophistical arguments"; he pointed out that S. may stem from the ambiguity of the meaning of otd. words (or their combinations) or due to violation of the rules of logic. A common type of S. are arguments built on arbitrarily chosen alternatives that are beneficial to the sophist, with the help of which, generally speaking, one can prove anything. Reasoning of this kind can usually be countered with equal justification by the opposite reasoning. So, according to the story of Aristotle, one Athenian woman inspired her son: "Do not interfere in public affairs, because if you tell the truth, people will hate you, but if you tell a lie, the gods will hate you" - to which, naturally, one can object: "You must participate in public affairs, because if you tell the truth, the gods will love you, and if you tell a lie, people will love you." S. is sometimes called reasoning, to-rye are essentially paradoxes (eg, "Liar", "Heap"). But these concepts should be distinguished. Unlike paradoxes, real logics do not appear in S. difficulties are obviously incorrect application of semantic. and logical. rules and operations.

Lit.: Jevons V.S., An elementary textbook of deductive and inductive logic with questions and examples, [transl. from English], St. Petersburg, 1881; Minto V., Deductive and inductive logic, trans. from English, 6th ed., M., 1909; Akhmanov A.S., Logich. the teachings of Aristotle, M., 1960.

A. Subbotin. Moscow.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .

SOPHISM

SOPHISM (from the Greek. sophisma - trick, trick, fiction, puzzle) - reasoning, conclusion or convincing ( argumentation), substantiating any deliberate absurdity (absurdity) or a statement that contradicts generally accepted ideas ( paradox). Here is a sophism based on the separation of the meaning of the whole: “5 = 2 + 3, but 2 is even and 3 is odd, therefore 5 is both even and odd.” And here is a sophism constructed in violation of the law of identity and the semiotic role of quotation marks: “If Socrates and a man are not the same, then Socrates is not the same as Socrates, since Socrates is a man.” Both of these sophisms are cited by Aristotle. He called sophisms "imaginary evidence", in which the validity of the conclusion is only apparent and is due to a purely subjective impression caused by a lack of logical or semantic analysis. The outward persuasiveness of many sophisms, their "logicality" is usually associated with a well-disguised error - a semiotic one (due to the metaphorical nature of speech, amonymy or polysemy of words, amphiboly, etc.), which violates the unambiguity and leads to a confusion of the meanings of terms, or a logical one (due to ignoring or substitution of the thesis in the case of proofs or refutations, errors in the derivation of consequences, the use of “unresolved” or even “forbidden” rules or actions, for example, division by zero in mathematical sophisms).

Historically, the concept of “sophism” has invariably been associated with deliberate falsification, guided by the recognition of Protagoras that the task of the sophist is to present the worst as the best by ingenious tricks in speech, caring not for the truth, but for practical benefit, for success in a dispute or litigation. His well-known “foundation criterion” is usually associated with the same task: a person has truths. Already Plato, who called sophistry “shameful rhetoric”, remarked on this that it should not lie in the subjective will of a person, otherwise contradictions will have to be recognized, and therefore any judgments should be considered justified. Plato found this thought in Aristotle's "principle of non-contradiction" (see p. Law logical) and, already in modern logic, in the requirement to prove the absolute consistency of theories. But quite appropriate in the field of “truths of reason”, this requirement is not always justified in the field of “actual truths”, where the foundations of Protagoras, understood, however, more broadly, as the relativity of truth to the conditions and means of its cognition, turns out to be very significant. Therefore, many reasonings that lead to paradoxes, but are otherwise impeccable, are not sophisms. In essence, they only demonstrate the interval epistemological situations associated with them. Such, in particular, are the well-known aporias of Zeno of Elea or the so-called. sophism “heap”: “One grain is not a heap. If η grains are not a heap, then η + 1 is also not a heap. Therefore, any grain is not a bunch.” This is not a sophism, but only one of the transitivity paradoxes that arise in situations of indistinguishability (or interval equality) in which mathematical induction is not applicable. The desire to see in such situations an “intolerant contradiction” (A. Poincaré), overcome in the abstract concept of mathematical continuity (continuum), does not solve the problem in the general case. Suffice it to say that the idea of ​​equality (identity) in the field of factual truths essentially depends on what means of identification are used. For example, it is not always possible for us to replace the abstraction of indistinguishability with the abstraction of identification. And only in this case, one can count on the “overcoming” of contradictions such as the paradox of transitivity.

The first to understand the importance of the theoretical analysis of sophisms were, apparently, themselves (cf. Sophistry). Prodik considered the doctrine of correct speech, of the correct use of names, to be the most important. Analysis and examples of sophisms are also presented in Plato's dialogues. But their systematic analysis, already based on the theory of syllogistic inferences (cf. syllogistic) belongs to Aristotle. Later, the mathematician Euclid wrote "Pseudarius" - a kind of catalog of sophisms in geometric proofs, but it has not been preserved.

Lit.: Plato. Soch., vol. 1. M., 1968 (dialogues: “Protagoras”, “Gorgai”, “Menon”, “Cratylus”), vol. 2. M., 1970 (dialogues: “Theaetetus”, “Sophist”) ; Aristotle. “On sophistical refutations”.- Soch., v. 2. M., 1978; Akhmanova, S. Aristotle's logical doctrine. M., I960, ch. 13.

M. M. Novoselov

New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001 .

See what "SOPHISM" is in other dictionaries:

- (Greek, from sophos wise). Deliberately false conclusion, incorrect judgment, which is given the appearance of truth. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. SOPHISM Greek. sophismos, from sophos, wise. False judgment, ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Sophism- Sophism ♦ Sophisme This incident happened to me about fifteen years ago, in Montpellier, in the courtyard of a beautiful 18th century mansion turned into an amphitheater. As part of the festival held by the Culture of France society, I participated in a debate about ... ... Philosophical Dictionary of Sponville

See the trick... Synonym dictionary

Yu.E.Lukashov, Ph.D., head of the department of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "VNIIMS"; V. A. Skovorodnikov, Ph.D., Deputy Director of FSUE "VNIIMS"

Sophism - a formally seemingly correct, but essentially false conclusion, based on a deliberately incorrect selection of initial positions; misleading verbal trick. Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by T.F. Efremova.

This issue of the journal publishes an article by V.A. Bryukhanov “Innovations with the concept of “metrological support” can belittle it and devalue it.” Frankly, we had doubts whether it was necessary to react to this “opus” (this is how the author himself, for some reason, ironically, as it seemed to us, refers to his article). In the end, everyone has the right to express their opinion on the topic covered in our article. But doubts disappeared when it became clear that the delusions of our opponent (to be shown below) can be broadcast to our readers and mislead them.

Reading a very voluminous "opus" of our opponent, we, first of all, tried to find the main thing that caused his discontent. It turns out that the term “metrological assurance of measurements” introduced by us is no good. It is the term, since we did not find claims to the definition of this concept in the article.

"Apply" dimensions to dimensions? This clearly sounds bad. The words “metrological support of measurements” sound, from my point of view, also ridiculous (may the authors of the article * forgive me for this word, but it accurately conveys my idea), as, for example, the words “medical support of medicine”, “financial support of finance "," Staffing, etc. "

We liked these sophistries! Sounds stupid? And how do you like insurance of the amount of the client's deposit in the bank? Isn't this the financial security (insurance company) of the finances (deposit amount) of the client?!

Let's move on to metrology. Determination of measurement error or uncertainty. isn't that a metrological action applied to measurements? If our opponent had carefully read the definition of the concept of "metrological assurance of measurements", he would have easily seen that it contains processes (actions) aimed at obtaining measurement information that has (certain) properties, including accuracy characteristics.

And the fact that the opponent did not read our article very carefully is evident from the following quote from his “opus” (contrary to his assertion of a careful reading):

“On a careful reading of the article, you can be sure that it does not contain any proposals for diversifying the concept of “metrological support”. The article simply proposes to replace the time-tested fundamental, one might say, the concept of "metrological assurance of measurements" given in GOST 1.25-76. The authors of the article simply do not consider other objects of metrological support or, in other words, applications of metrology to other objects. Does that sound like diversification? (Highlighted by us. - Auth.).

The statement we underlined in the above quotation, to put it mildly, is not entirely true. You can verify this by reading our article on page 26, the second paragraph from the top, and the end of the article on page 33.

It should be said that the phrase "metrological assurance of measurements" is not new and not invented by us. It is easy to verify this by going to the Internet, clicking on Google and asking the question: "metrological assurance of measurements." In response, you will receive a huge number of articles on the topic of "metrological assurance of measurements."

This is where the opponent's claims end. Everything else in the "opus" is devoted to an excursion into the history of the emergence of "metrological support", the assertion that "there is no reason for" dismantling "the definition of the concept of" metrological support "given once in GOST 1.25-76" today and cannot be in principle !”, and reasoning about the importance of metrological support. You can thank Vadim Alekseevich for the historical background - it's really interesting. We knew these people personally, worked together for many years and treat their memory with deep respect. At one time they did a great job by developing GOST 1.25-76, which played a significant role in the development of metrological support in the USSR. But you need to be well aware that the standard was written in another country, for other economic conditions, in a different organizational environment. And the logical conclusion of the story was its abolition in 1994. But it would be strange if today, raising the question of the development of metrological support, we would continue to remain captive to the old views, recognizing only “cosmetic” changes, without affecting the foundations of the concept.

In view of the importance of the issue, we would also like for all readers, and especially for those who do not understand, to formulate the main postulates that underlie our understanding of the concept of metrological assurance.

1. The subject of metrological support are measurements performed at various facilities: input control of raw materials and materials, technological process, product testing, output control, objects of increased danger1, processes of treating people, scientific research, etc., etc.

Here it is necessary to clearly distinguish and not confuse the subject of metrological support and the objects of metrological support. In the journal "Sovetnik metrologa" No. 5/2012, a draft GOST 8 ... "GSI. metrological support. Basic Provisions”, which gives strict definitions of these concepts.

2. Metrological support is aimed at creating conditions for obtaining measurement information about the quantitative values ​​of the parameters and characteristics of the measured objects. Many metrologists quite rightly say that metrological support is a necessary condition for the production of quality products. But the purpose of metrological support is not only limited to this. We have the right to raise a more general question - metrological support aims to create conditions for obtaining measurement information used to develop and make decisions at all facilities where measurements are performed for this. These solutions are developed for the production of quality products, and for increasing the efficiency of production, and for ensuring labor safety, and for providing quality services, and for many other things;

In many cases, to develop and make decisions, it is not enough to have only the results of measurements, but you also need to know, for example, the conditions under which the measurements were performed. Therefore, we move on to a more general concept - measuring information. This is described in detail in our article (pp. 26-27).

3. The concept of "metrological assurance of measurements" includes "elements" and "processes". In the GOST project we mentioned, a list of elements and processes is provided. There are two important points to note here. First, the basic requirements for the elements of metrological assurance of measurements arise at the stages of design, production, and testing of products. Therefore, the participation of metrologists at all stages of the development of requirements, compliance with which they will have to ensure, is so important.

The second is the requirements for the processes of metrological assurance of measurements, since these are actions to ensure the uniformity of measurements, established by law or regulatory legal acts of federal executive bodies.

We emphasize once again that the activity to ensure the uniformity of measurements is an integral part of the metrological support of measurements. Therefore, the activities of the metrological service of an enterprise should not be limited only to ensuring the uniformity of measurements (although this is extremely important), but also, to a large extent, extend to the establishment of requirements, the selection and appointment of elements of metrological assurance of measurements.

4 In the modern structural organization of the management of the country's economy, the key issue in the topic under discussion is the question of the subjects of metrological support. Let us turn again to GOST 1.25-76. In it, "the organizational basis of metrological support is the metrological service of the USSR, consisting of state and departmental metrological services." And the main tasks of metrological support facing the State Standard, ministries and departments, and enterprises were determined in great detail. In the current conditions, when there is no Gosstandart, when ministries and departments have been radically transformed, and in such a way that the provisions on these structures do not contain a word about metrological support (see, for example, the provisions on Rosstandart and the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia), a problem arises consisting in the fact that at the federal level there is not a single body that would deal with the organization of metrological support in general, and not just in the industry. In this matter, enterprises are left to their own devices.

In the "Concept of metrological assurance of measurements" developed by us, the draft of which was published in the "Advisor of the Metrologist" No. 4/2012, we proposed two alternative (possible) directions for solving the issues of metrological assurance:
"one. The state is responsible for the organization and legal regulation of metrological support. For these purposes, a federal executive body is allocated, which is in charge of state regulation of metrological support.