Term
|
Definition
| This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been." |
|
|
Term
| Ad Baculum fallacy / Appeal to force |
|
Definition
| This fallacy occurs when someone resorts to force (or the threat of force) to try and push others to accept a conclusion. This fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness, that those with more money are more likely to be right. Example: "Microsoft software is undoubtedly superior; why else would Bill Gates have got so rich?" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This fallacyliterally means "argument directed at the man," and there are two varieties. The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example: "Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes." This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example: "Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white." This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This fallacy means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true. (Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The fallacy of assuming that someone poor is sounder or more virtuous than someone who's wealthier. For example: "Monks are more likely to possess insight into the meaning of life, as they have given up the distractions of wealth." |
|
|
Term
| Ad Misericordiam fallacy / Pulling the heartstrings |
|
Definition
| This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as the Special Pleading or Guilt Trip fallacy. The fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So this fallacy is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This is the fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than, something else. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This fallacy is an assertion that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. For example: "All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it." |
|
|
Term
| Ad Populum fallacy / Appealing to the Gallery / Appealing to the People |
|
Definition
| You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by assuming the wants, needs, and perspectives of a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. |
|
|
Term
| Ad Verecundiam fallacy / Appeal to Authority |
|
Definition
The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:
"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God." This line of argument isn't always completely bogus; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field if you're discussing that subject. |
|
|
Term
| Bandwagon fallacy / Peer Pressure fallacy |
|
Definition
| This fallacy occurs when you try to persuade someone to purchase a product or take an action because everyone else is doing it. |
|
|
Term
| Bifurcation / False Dilemma / Either/Or Thinking |
|
Definition
| Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. Ignores other relevant alternatives. |
|
|
Term
| Circulus in demonstrando / Circular Argument |
|
Definition
| This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example: "Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office." Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees. If you've already reached a particular conclusion once, it's easy to accidentally make it an assertion when explaining your reasoning to someone else. |
|
|
Term
| Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition |
|
Definition
| This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One example is the classic loaded question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination, when they ask questions like: "Where did you hide the money you stole?" Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as: "How long will this EU interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?" or "Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?" Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established. |
|
|
Term
| Converse accident / Hasty generalization |
|
Definition
| This fallacy occurs when you form a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which aren't representative of all possible cases—in other words, drawing conclusions without considering alternative information. |
|
|
Term
| Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy |
|
Definition
| This fallacy is an assertion that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. "Literacy rates have steadily declined since the advent of television. Clearly television viewing impedes learning." |
|
|
Term
| Equivocation / False Emphasis |
|
Definition
Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. For example:
"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable." One way to avoid this fallacy is to choose your terminology carefully before beginning the argument, and avoid words like "free" which have many meanings. |
|
|
Term
| Fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter |
|
Definition
| A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation, but the features of that particular situation mean the rule is inapplicable. It's the error made when you go from the general to the specific. This fallacy is often committed by people who try to decide moral and legal questions by mechanically applying general rules. |
|
|
Term
| False analogy / Flawed comparison |
|
Definition
| Comparison between two unlikely, unrelated items. An unjustifiable or too restrictive comparison between seemingly identical situations in different categories or contexts. Example: “I have to balance my personal checkbook; why shouldn't the federal government have to?” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Neglecting the possibility that there may be more than two ways to respond to a given issue. |
|
|
Term
| Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion |
|
Definition
| Claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it actually has nothing to do with or has no logical connection to that conclusion. |
|
|
Term
| The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature |
|
Definition
| The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar: "The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works." Another form of appeal to nature is to argue that because human beings are products of the natural world, we must mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is 'unnatural': "Of course homosexuality is unnatural. When's the last time you saw two animals of the same sex mating?" |
|
|
Term
| Non causa pro causa / False Cause fallacy |
|
Definition
| Identifying something as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown or proven to be a cause. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren't logically connected with it. For example: "Since Egyptians did so much excavation to construct the pyramids, they were well versed in paleontology." Huh? |
|
|
Term
| Petitio principii / Begging the question |
|
Definition
| Also known as circular reasoning, this fallacy is an assumption that an idea can be accepted as true or unquestionable, when, in fact, it cannot be so accepted. Also, a question offered without an immediate answer or set of answers. This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. For example: "Aliens are abducting innocent victims every week. The government must know what is going on. Therefore the government is in league with the aliens." Another example: “Theft is illegal because, if it wasn't, then it wouldn't be against the law.” Another: “We all hate politics, don’t we?” |
|
|
Term
| Plurium interrogationum / Many questions |
|
Definition
| This fallacy occurs when someone either stacks multiple questions or demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a complex question or one answer to a multi-part question. Example: "Are higher taxes an impediment to business or not? Yes or no?" |
|
|
Term
| Post hoc fallacy (Latin for: "after this, therefore because of this") |
|
Definition
| Assuming that A caused B because B followed A. Confusing chronological relationship for cause-and-effect relationship. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made towards a different conclusion. Example: "You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent against crime -- but what about the victims of crime? How do you think surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay for their son's murderer to be fed and housed?" |
|
|
Term
| Reification / Hypostatization |
|
Definition
| This fallacy occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing. "I noticed you described him as 'evil'. Where does this 'evil' exist within the brain? You can't show it to me, so I claim it doesn't exist, and no man is 'evil'." |
|
|
Term
| Shifting the burden of proof |
|
Definition
| The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. "OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?" |
|
|
Term
| The Slippery Slope argument |
|
Definition
| This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. For example: "If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Generalizing from a small sample. Example: “We need to shut down the border; our welfare rolls are already too large.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A complex concept radically simplified. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. For instance: "You're just being randomly abusive." "So? You've been abusive too." |
|
|
