nyuuzyou/wikis huggingface dataset:
Appel à la pitié

L'appel à la pitié (en latin argumentum ad misericordiam) est un sophisme qui se produit lorsque quelque chose est prétendu être vrai car (a) il est triste ou (b) sa fausseté causerait de la tristesse. Son inverse est l'appel à la haine.
C'est un appel à l'émotion et un sophisme informel.
==Forme==
Si on ajoute du texte à une triste image d'un chiot :
Si on exige, en pleurant, une meilleure note :
==Explication==
Juste parce que quelque chose est triste ne signifie pas qu'il est plus ou moins vrai.
==Exemples==
*Je n'avais pas les moyens pour aller à l'université et je ne comprends pas ces belles explications que vous me servez. Mais j'ai lu ma Bible, et ça briserait mon cœur si ce n'était pas vrai.
*Bob était orphelin, élevé par un beau-père qui occupait des emplois subalternes toute la journée pour joindre les deux bouts.
*Je sais que Scruffles a la rage, tue d'autres animaux de compagnie et détruit le mobilier, mais je l'aime tout de même et vous ne pouvez pas me le prendre !
*M. l'agent, vous ne pouvez pas me donner une contravention pour griller un feu rouge : je vais à l'hôpital pour voir ma femme, qui est dans un état critique, et lui dire que j'ai perdu mon boulot, la maison a brûlé et la bagnole va être mise en saisie.
==Voir aussi==
===Versions en autres langues===
==Liens externes==
*Voir l'article de Wikipédia sur l'appel à la pitié.
Category:Français
Category:Logique
Applied kinesiology

Applied kinesiology (not to be confused with the scientific study of human movement) is a major chiropractic-based woo that is based on the idea that the way your muscles respond to being pushed against can tell the "doctor" what you're suffering from, including food sensitivity (as distinct from actual immune response), toxins, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity."Applied kinesiology," AZ Multicare website, accessed September 2, 2019. It has even been claimed that applied kinesiology can detect parasites from "parasite energy signatures".New Paradigm Healing: Parasite Elimination. Archived from the original. Apparently the practice can also be used to turn your body into a human lie detector.http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to-do-kinesiology-self-muscle-test-224193/ The things these people believe…
==(In)efficacy==
In general, any treatment or diagnosis administered by applied kinesiology tends to be outperformed by standard medical diagnosis and treatment for the particular condition.Applied Kinesiology Dr. Weil's Wellness Therapies For many muscles groups, different kinesiologists were unable to make the same diagnosis as one another,INTEREXAMINER AGREEMENT FOR APPLIED KINESIOLOGY MANUAL MUSCLE TESTING Arden Lawson, and Lawrence Calderon suggesting that the techniques lack any functional unifying theory. For diagnosing nutrition-related problems, applied kinesiology is as accurate as random guesses.
==Scam==
The applied kinesiology scam is a trick used by some chiropractors and purveyors of "power bracelets" to fool someone concerning the efficacy of an object or therapy. It entails placing someone in an unstable position or touching them in a way designed to momentarily distract them, then pushing or pulling on them to make them unbalanced. The procedure is then repeated, but with the aid of the 'magic' item. However, this time, the subject is subconsciously prepared for the action and is able to successfully resist the pushing or pulling. 
A Skeptic Zone Podcast shows how it is done: 
==See also==
*iRenew
*Power Balance
==External links==
*Is Applied Kinesiology (Muscle Testing) A Scam?
==References==
category:Pseudoscience
category:Scams
Category:Manipulative therapy
Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ

The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ is yet another woo book claiming to be a lost gospel. It was published in 1911 by Levi Dowling, a Church of Christ minister who claimed he obtained the text from the Akashic Records, a Theosophical concept of a mystical library existing on another plane of existence containing all the knowledge of the universe.Edgar J. Goodspeed, Strange New Gospels. The University of Chicago Press, 1931.
The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ attempts to fill in the gap in the gospel records of Jesus by claiming he traveled to India and Tibet in his young age to learn from the gurus there before beginning his ministry in Palestine. The book also endorses reincarnation. It is riddled with historical errors, for example naming Herod Antipas as the ruler of Jerusalem at the time a different Herod ruled, and claiming Jesus visited Lahore, India (now in Pakistan), which did not officially exist at the time.According to an article from Cornerstone magazine on the Aquarian Gospel which says Lahore did not exist until 600 years later. Though that other wiki says that, though there's not much historical evidence over 1000 years old, there may have been some sort of settlement on the site as early as the 2nd century, so that proves the Aquarian Gospel is true!!
==See also==
* Book of Mormon
* Urantia Book
* A Course in Miracles
* Oahspe
==Notes==
==References==
Category:Scriptures
Category:New Age
Category:Hoaxes
Arab nationalism

Arab nationalism is a nationalist ideology stating that the people of the entire Arab world are bound together by common cultural heritage. It is different from Pan-Arabism, whose adherents believe in Arab nationalism, but go further to advocate an Arab nation-state. It is also distinct from Palestinian nationalism, which began as an Arab nationalist movement but today focuses almost exclusively on competing Palestinian and Israeli land claims.
Arab nationalism was a major political force in the Middle East in the middle twentieth century, and to some extent still matters today. However, it has greatly lost ground to Islamism since the mid-1970s. Ruhollah Khomeini was a major opponent of Arab nationalism, due to the way it pitted the Arab world against majority-Persian Iran. While Khomeini succeeded to a great extent in advancing Islam at the expense of nationalism, the Sunni-Shi'a unity that he professed to believe in has yet to materialize.
Probably most important figure in the Arab nationalist movement was Gamal Abdel Nasser, who sought to minimize Western presence in the Arab world and nationalized the Suez Canal. Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein also expressed Arab nationalist views. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was originally an Arab nationalist, but shifted towards a more exclusively Palestinian nationalism as Palestinian Arabs began to define their nationality in terms of their conflict with Israel, rather than in terms of their relationships with other Arabs.
Arab nationalism's great weakness was that it became associated almost entirely with Gamal Abdel Nasser. When Nasser's mystique collapsed in 1967 after the debacle of the Six-Day War with Israel, Arab nationalism never recovered its popular appeal and fell easily to the Islamist movement.
Category:Nationalism
Category:Nationalist pseudohistory
Category:Middle East
Category:Racism
Arbitrage

Arbitrage is business practice by which differences in prices for the same good are taken advantage of by some seller. A good will be purchased in a market where it is cheap, then resold in one where it is higher, the difference will yield a profit. To put it simply, buy low, sell high.Arbitrage basics. Khan Academy 
==The basics==
Arbitrage is done when discrepancies in real prices for the same good offer real chances to make profits. This can be done both domestically and internationally.Chen, James & Gordon Scott. "Arbitrage". Investopedia. Retrieved 2020-02-04. Suppose a gallon of milk costs $1.00 in the United States but $3.00 in Canada. The intelligent capitalist sees this, buys up a lot of milk in the USA and sells it in Canada for a handsome profit. Because of the ever fluctuating nature and uncertainty of exchange rates, transportation costs, tariffs, and taxes in the real world this process is often a bit messier, with far less even numbers.
===High vs. low risk===
Low risk arbitrage is usually about selling in markets where the price is already well established and the future is fairly certain. Investors will sometimes gamble, buying an item they believe will still be expensive later, or perhaps go up more in price. If the price does stay high, they win, if it goes down quickly, they lose.
==Supply and demand, to the rescue==
Over time as more sellers try to capitalize on the profit-making opportunity the high price market will become flooded with more of the product. Absent big increases in demand, the increases in total supply will drive down prices as sellers now have more and more competition. In our previous milk example, as time would pass more capitalists would start buying milk in the USA (driving up the price there) and sell it Canada (lowering the price there). In theory the prices would equalize over time. This assumes of course, continuous availability of supply. Sometimes the item in question is inherently rare and non- in which case there is little or no equalization of the two curves. Examples include: exceptionally large gems (e.g., the Hope Diamond), rare fossils in private hands (e.g., T. rex), very rare books (e.g., Gutenberg Bibles), and famous artwork (e.g., the Mona Lisa).
==See also==
*Capitalism
*Game theory
==References==
Category:Economics
Arecibo answer

The "Arecibo answer" is a crop circle (well, crop rectangle, to be accurate) that is purported to be a response to the "Arecibo message", a piece of coded information about Earth and humanity which was first beamed into space in 1974. It appeared in 2001 near the Chilbolton radio telescope in Hampshire, UK. Despite the fact crop circles are known to be hoaxes, people still believe that this is key evidence of extraterrestrial presence on Earth.Answer To 'Arecibo' Crop Circle? - A Clever Hoax?, Bill Hamilton, Rense.com At the time of this hoax, the usual suspect came out of the woodworks to claim that this is "undeniable proof!!!!" that aliens have contacted us. Amidst all this madness, SETI had to actually come out and spell it out that the obvious hoax is indeed an obvious hoax.
==The response==
The crop circle is a near replica of the Arecibo message, which contained various pieces of information such as the numbers of chemical elements, the composition of DNA, the position of Earth in the Solar System, and a depiction of a human being. The "answer" itself doesn't expand much upon this and still forms the same 23 x 73 grid (because these numbers are primes) and most of the chemical data remains the same. The changes to the message to create the response are straight from existing alien folklore and science fiction. In the section detailing important chemical elements, the main focus is altered from carbon to silicon, and the diagram of DNA is re-scribbled slightly. At the bottom, the pictogram of a human is replaced with a shorter figure with a large, bulbous head. This is a clear reference to the "grey" type of alien, and as a depiction could only be something that a human came up with.The Chilbolton Crop Glyphs - A Message Finally Received, Richard Hoagland
Note also the obvious representation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster… four years before Bobby Henderson’s letter to the Kansas School Board. Oo-wee-oo!
==Reality check==
The likelihood of the Arecibo message ever being picked up is very, very low. It was aimed at globular star cluster M13, which is 25,000 light years away. In fact, it's so far away that in 25,000 years when it finally reaches its destination, its destination will have, in fact, moved! The message was only intended as a demonstration of the transmission technology, not as a serious attempt to make contact.
The message does also pass close enough to a few nearby stars to have been potentially "received" in their vicinity. But why wouldn't the recipients simply send back a message via radio, instead of coming here and messing up some poor farmer's crops at night and then sneaking away?
	
==See also==
*Alien abduction
==References==
Category:Hoaxes
Argument by gibberish

An argument by gibberish is one that relies on nonsense, inscrutable words, or impenetrable jargon, i.e. gibberish. An argument by gibberish is a formal fallacy and is a type of non sequitur. Because the argument by gibberish is nonsensical, it may also try to rely on an appeal to emotion by verbal inflection, shouting, or use of emotive phrases (e.g., "Hell, I was born here!") that are tangential to the argument.
The form of the argument by gibberish is:
For example:
The argument by gibberish differs from word salad in that word salad may or may not be part of an argument. However, word salad can form one or more of the premises/conclusions of arguments by gibberish. The statements may fail in having incoherent premises/conclusions (meaning it may be non-sequitur/unsound).
==Background and context ==
If one wants people to understand them, one must balance complexity and precision: complex language can increase our specificity, but it can also hamper it. Writers of gibberish deliberately increase complexity to minimize specificity. They hope that by obscuring their arguments: (a) the audience won't realize that they have nothing to say, or (b) that the audience will think that it is just not clever enough to understand the argument. Writers who wish to avoid gibberish will increase complexity only when there is a marked (and necessary) increase in precision.
==Validity as a fallacy?==
Since an argument by gibberish is, in fact, gibberish, some argue that it isn't technically applicable to call it a "fallacy" per se. One wouldn't call the angry shrieking of a rabid squirrel "fallacious," for example.
==Examples==
===From the film Blazing Saddles===
Or in syllogistic form:
===From the film Kind Hearts and Coronets===
===From Time Cube===
===From TempleOS===
===From QAnon===
==SMOG==
 (simplified measure of gobbledygook) is a tool for assessing the complexity of language, and from its use, one is better prepared to judge if a piece of text is gibberish or not. SMOG measures the reading level required to understand a text based on the number, on average, of syllables per word.
An example of a text analyzed by SMOG from the heights (or depths, depending on one's skepticism of postmodernism) of cognition comes from Deleuzian philosopher Dr Alberto Toscano:
SMOG grade of 18.97=post-graduate degree required.The Sceptic's Field Guide: SMOG by Theo ClarkSMOG 
==External links==
*Argument by Gibberish — Logically Fallacious
==See also==
*Birth Control Is Sinful In The Christian Marriages and also Robbing God Of Priesthood Children!!
==References==
Category:Formal fallacies
Argument from omniscience

An argument from omniscience (also allness, absolute thinking) occurs when somebody thinks they know literally everything or know everything about the subject at hand.http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm#subject The fallacy is commonly expressed with words like "all", "everyone", "no one", "everything", "always", or "never".
The problem with such an argument is twofold: first, that an arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or about everything in existence, and second, because the arguer does not have omniscience, they are often wrong and counterexamples to the generalization exist.
The argument is an informal fallacy and is theoretically the opposite of an argument from ignorance; however, because it relies on things that the speaker cannot know, it functions as an argument from ignorance and fails for the same reasons.
This fallacious form of reasoning often comes in two fantastically fallacious flavours — Alleged Certaintyhttps://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Alleged-Certainty and Amazing Familiarity.https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Amazing-Familiarity In the case of Alleged Certainty, a claim is primed with language, such as "every", "everyone knows", and "we all know", that suggests that something is certainly the case, without providing a solid reason or evidence. This allows them to exploit the supposed obviousness of their point, as the audience, not wanting to feel like they've ignored the obvious, are convinced to agree. It is similar to the Appeal to popularity. 
Amazing Familiarity occurs when a claim is made about someone or something, but the information necessary to support this claim is impossible to obtain or would require omniscience on the part of the speaker. This overlaps with wishful thinking, as the claim will often involve projections on the part of the speaker.
==Examples==
An important example is that of overprecision.
*Everyone knows that.
*All people believe in something.http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm
*All students love studying.https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Stevenarntson/Freshman_Seminar/Critical_thinking#Allness
*The president is a good man and would have never cheated on his wife, and has never cheated in anything in the past.https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Amazing-Familiarity
In the first three examples, there may be people who don't — and unless the arguer can prove that no such people exist, then their argument is flawed. In the fourth, the speaker would have to be extremely close to the President — and watched him for almost his whole life — to be able to defend this point.
==See also==
* No true Scotsman
==References==
Category:Arguments from ignorance
Category:Informal fallacies
Argumento

En lógica, un argumento (del latín argumentum: "prueba, evidencia, razón"; del verbo arguere, argüir, y el sufijo -mentum, instrumento: instrumento para argüir)Diccionario etimológico es una serie conectada de enunciados o preposiciones, llamadas premisas, que pretenden proveer una base, justificación o evidencia para defender la veracidad de otro enunciado, la conclusión.
==Argumentos deductivos==
Se le llama argumento deductivo a aquel por el cual conclusión es una consecuencia lógica de las premisas; un argumento deductivo afirma que la verdad de la conclusión es defendida por las premisas. Todas las premisas deben ser verdaderas para que el argumento deductivo sea sólido y válido.Argumento deductivo Secretaría de Educación Media Superior (SEMS). México.
Por ejemplo, el siguiente es un argumento deductivo válido (la conclusión es un producto lógico de las premisas) y sólido (las premisas son verdaderas):
* Premisa 1. Todos los griegos son humanos.
* Premisa 2. Todos los humanos son mortales.
* Conclusión. Por consiguiente, todos los griegos son mortales.
Sin embargo, puede suceder que alguna premisa sea falsa, pero la conclusión verdadera, como sucede en este caso:
* Premisa 1. Los elefantes pueden volar.
* Premisa 2. Dumbo es un elefante.
* Conclusión. Dumbo puede volar.
También puede suceder que la conclusión sea errónea en estos casos (común), o que la conclusión sea verdadera cuando las premisas son falsas, aunque es extraordinariamente extraño.
Cabe mencionar que un argumento deductivo no deduce nada nuevo, sino que explicita la información ya contenida dentro de las premisas.Argumento deductivo UNAMEvaluación de un argumento deductivo Secretaría de Educación Media Superior (SEMS). México.
==Falacias==
Se le llama falacia a un argumento inválido, sobretodo cuando no satisface la idea de dar una conclusión lógicamente coherente con las premisas. Un ejemplo común es el non sequitur, donde la conclusión está completamente desconectada de las premisas. 
===Diferencia con los sofismas===
Anteriormente se tomaba en cuenta la intención del hablante para diferenciar un sofisma de una falacia; si el hablante mentía "sin querer", el enunciado era una falacia, pero si lo hacía a conciencia, se trataba de un sofisma. Sin embargo, esta distinción ha caído en desuso.Falacias UNAM
==En debates o discursos==
En la práctica cotidiana, un argumento puede estructurarse en distintos puntos de 
una conversación, cuestiones que se supone que ayudan a apoyar dicho argumento. Los puntos de discusión basados en la realidad distorsionada o falsa se utilizan a menudo en la propaganda y los debates políticos en conjunto con el lenguaje cargado o pedante para influir en el curso de un debate hacia una conclusión predeterminada. Estas tácticas convierten un argumento en una manipulación emocional (tener un argumento) en contraposición al ejercicio lógico (hacer un argumento).Having or Making an Argument
==Véase también==
===En inglés===
* Logical fallacy
* Logical validity
==Referencias==
Category:Español
Category:Evaluating arguments
Category:Logic
Argumentum ad baculum

An argumentum ad baculum (Latin: "argument to the stick") is a logical fallacy in which the arguer threatens their debate opponent with real or threatened violent or nonviolent coercion.
As with the appeal to bribery, it is the offer of a pleasant consequence if you go along with the argument.
The fallacy is an appeal to fear, an argument from consequences, and an informal fallacy.
==Alternate names==
*appeal to force 
*appeal to power
*appeal to bribery
==Form==
The argument takes this form:
*Accepting X leads to action Y against me.
*I do not want action Y to occur to me.
*Therefore, X is not true / not false.
Y could be anything from torture to the loss of a potential bribe, as long as it's motivational and tied to acceptance of a proposition.
===Legitimate use===
As the argumentum ad baculum is an appeal to consequences, it's not fallacious if the argument is based on avoiding consequences rather than any truth value (such as countering epistemological nihilism):
This applies even if the cause of the punishment is itself unjust. Thus, an argument against trying to escape slavery (you will be whipped if you attempt to escape) might be a valid reason to not escape slavery, even if slavery is a moral abomination and illegal in the place to which one escapes (Canada).
==Explanation==
The danger in holding a premise is irrelevant to the truth of that premise. This argument doesn't make any statement as to whether X is right or wrong, or whether punishment Y should follow action X, only that it's probably not something you want to do.
==Examples==
# If I don't think the boss is nice, I will be fired.
# I don't want to be fired.
# Therefore, I will think the boss is nice.
Perhaps the most simple example would be:
*Believe what I say, or I will hit you.
===Spanish Inquisition===
A modified form of the argument was otherwise known as the Inquisitorial Question, and took this form:
*If person A denies being a heretic, then we will torture A.
*Therefore, A is a heretic.
It proved very useful for getting almost all the Inquisition's targets to admit they were heretics. It may also have been effective because nobody expected it.
==Nothing to do with==
The actual in animal anatomy. As such, this is not "Argument to the penis bone",But you have to admit that would be funny. especially since humans lack said bone.
==See also==
*Threat
==External links==
*
*Appeal to Bribery, Bruce Thompson
*TvTropes' article on this subject
==Notes==
Category:Emotional appeals
Category:Informal fallacies
Category:Latin phrases
Category:Authoritarianism
Category:Totalitarianism