A List of Fallacies
A List of Fallacies
Generally, a fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. Specifically, a fallacy is a violation of one of the rules of constructing a good argument. A good argument is composed of premises that:
Improper Accent -- Directing an opponent toward an unwarranted conclusion by placing improper or unusual emphasis on a word, phrase or particular aspect of an issue or claim. It is sometimes committed by lifting portions of a quotation out of context in a way that conveys a meaning not intended by the person quoted.
Attack the Person (Ad Hominem) -- Attacking one’s opponent in a personal and abusive way as a means of ignoring or discrediting his or her position or argument.
Ambiguity -- Presenting a claim or argument that uses a word, phrase, or grammatical construction that can be interpreted in two or more distinctly different ways, without making clear which meaning is intended.
Circular Argument -- Either explicitly or implicitly asserting, in one or more of the premises of an argument, what is asserted in the conclusion of that argument. Moreover, it uses a premise that probably would not be regarded as true, unless the conclusion were already regarded as true.
Straw Man -- Misrepresenting an opponent’s view or argument, usually for the purpose of making it easier to attack.
Irrelevant or Questionable Authority (ad Verecundiam) -- Attempting to support a claim by quoting the judgment of one who is not an authority in the field, the judgment of an unidentified authority, or the judgment of an authority who is likely to be biased in some way.
Casual Oversimplification -- Oversimplifying the relevant casual antecedents of an event by introducing factors insufficient to account for the event in question or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of those factors.
Improper Use of a Cliché -- Using an aphorism or cliché in place of relevant evidence for a claim.
Neglect of a Common Cause -- Failing to recognize that two seemingly related events may not be casually related at all, but rather are effects of a common cause.
Appeal to Common Opinion (ad Populum) -- Urging the acceptance of a position simply on the grounds that most, or at least great numbers of, people accept it, or in urging the rejection of a position on the grounds that very few people accept it.
Fallacy of Composition -- Assuming that what is true of the parts of some whole is therefore true of the whole.
Confusion of Cause and Effect -- Confusing the cause with the effect of an event or in failing to recognize that there may be a reciprocal casual relation between the two events in question.
Confusion of a Necessary with a Sufficient Opinion -- Assuming that a necessary condition of an event is also a sufficient one.
Fallacy of the Continuum -- Assuming that small differences in a sequence of things are insignificant or that supposed contraries, connected by intermediate small differences, are really very much the same. Hence, there is the failure to recognize the importance or necessity of sometimes making what might appear to be arbitrary distinctions or cut-off points.
Contrary-to-Fact Hypothesis -- Making a poorly supported claim about what would have happened in the past if other conditions had been present, or about an event that will occur in the future. This is done in such a way as to treat hypothetical claims as if they were statements of fact.
Denying the Counterevidence -- Refusing to acknowledge, or to consider seriously, evidence that counts against one’s claim. The most radical form of this fallacy is to be unwilling to acknowledge even any conceivable evidence that might count against the claim.
Ignoring the Counterevidence -- Arguing in a way that ignores or simply omits any reference to important evidence unfavorable to one’s position, giving the false impression that there is no significant evidence against it.
Distinction Without a Difference -- Attempting to defend an action or point of view as different from some other one, with which it is allegedly confused, by means of a very careful distinction of language. In reality, however, the action or position defended is no different in substance from the one from which it is linguistically distinguished.
Fallacy of Division -- Assuming that what is true of some whole is therefore true of each of the parts of the whole.
Domino Fallacy -- Assuming, without appropriate evidence, that a particular action or event is just one, usually the first, in a series of steps that will lead inevitably to some specific consequence.
Equivocation -- Directing an opponent toward an unwarranted conclusion by making a word or phrase, employed in two different senses in an argument, appear to have the same meaning throughout.
Fallacy of Fake Precision -- Making a claim with the kind of mathematical precision that is impossible to obtain.
False Alternatives -- Assuming too few alternatives and, at the same time, assuming that one of the suggested alternatives must be true.
Faulty Analogy -- Assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect.
Exploitation of Strong Feelings and Attitudes -- Attempting to persuade others of one’s point of view by exploiting their strong emotions or by manipulating their positive and negative attitudes certain groups or ideas, instead of presenting evidence for one’s view.
Use of Flattery -- Attempting to persuade others of one’s point of view by engaging in excessive praise of them, instead of presenting evidence for one’s view.
Appeal to Force (Ad Baculum) -- Attempting to persuade others of one’s view by threatening them with some undesirable state of affairs instead of presenting evidence for one’s view.
The Gambler’s Fallacy -- Arguing that because a chance event has had a certain run in the past, the probability of its occurrence in the future is significantly altered.
Genetic Fallacy -- Evaluating a thing in terms of its earlier context and then carrying over that evaluation to the thing in the present.
Fallacy of the Golden Mean -- Assuming that the moderate or middle view between two extremes must be the best or right one simply because it is the middle view.
Assigning Guilt by Association -- Attempting to manipulate others into accepting one’s view by pointing out that the opposing view is held by those with negative esteem, instead of presenting evidence for one’s position.
Resort to Humor or Ridicule -- Intruding humor or ridicule into an argument in an effort to cover up an inability or unwillingness to respond appropriately to an opponent’s position. Humor is thereby used as a substitute for relevant evidence.
Arguing from Ignorance (Ad Ignorantium) -- Assuming that a claim is true because there is no evidence or proof that it is false or because of the inability or refusal of an opponent to present convincing evidence against it. Conversely, it consists in assuming that a claim is false because there is no evidence or proof that it is true or because of the refusal or inability of an opponent to present convincing evidence for it.
Illicit Contrast -- A listener directly inferring from a speaker’s claim some related but unstated contrasting claim by placing improper or unusual emphasis on the words or phrases in the statement.
Argument by Innuendo -- Directing one’s listeners to a particular, usually derogatory, conclusion, by a skillful choice of words or the careful arrangement of sentences, which implicitly suggests but does not assert that conclusion. The force of the fallacy lies in the impression created that some veiled claim is true, although no relevant evidence is presented to support such a view.
Insufficient Example -- Drawing a conclusion or generalization from too small a sample of cases.
Is-Ought Fallacy -- Assuming that because something is now the practice, it ought to be the practice. Conversely, it consists in assuming that because something is not the practice, it ought not to be the practice.
Inference from a Label -- Assuming that the evaluative or identifying words or phrases attached to people or things constitute a sufficient reason for the drawing of conclusions about the objects to which such labels are attached.
Leading Question -- "Planting" a proposed answer to a question at issue by the manner in which the question is asked.
Loaded or Complex Question -- Formulating a question in a way that presupposes that a definite answer has already been given to some other unasked question, or in treating a series of questions as if it involved only one question.
Fallacy of Novelty -- Assuming that a new idea, law, policy, or action is good simply because it is new.
Omission of Key Evidence -- Constructing an argument that fails to include some of the key or principal evidence that is critical to the support of the conclusion.
Appeal to Personal Circumstances or Motives -- Urging an opponent to accept or reject a particular position by appealing solely to his or her personal circumstances or self-interest, usually when there is some more important issue at stake.
Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam) -- Attempting to persuade others of one’s point of view by appealing to their sympathy instead of relevant evidence, especially when some more important principle or issue is at stake.
Poisoning the Well -- Rejecting a claim defended by another because of that person’s special circumstances or improper motives.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy -- Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event A, simply because B follows A in time.
Misuse of a General Principle -- Assuming that a generalization or the rule has no exceptions, thus misapplying it in a particular instance. Conversely, it consists in attempting to refute a generalization or rule by means of an exceptional case.
Begging the Question (Petito Prinipii) -- Attempting to establish an irrefutable position in an argument by means of a questionable definition. What appears to be a factual or empirical claim is often rendered impervious to counterevidence by being subtly, and sometimes unconsciously, interpreted by the claimant as a definitional statement. The claim at issue thereby becomes "true" by definition.
Question-Begging Language -- Discussing an issue by means of language that assumes a position on the very question at issue, in such a way as to direct the listener to a particular conclusion about the issue.
Rationalization -- Using plausible-sounding but usually false reasons to justify a particular position that is held on other less respectable grounds.
Red Herring -- Attempting to hide the weakness of a position by drawing attention away from the real issue to a side issue.
Special Pleading -- Applying principles, rules, or criteria to another person, while failing or refusing to apply them to oneself or to a situation that is of special personal interest, without providing sufficient evidence to support such an exception.
Appeal to Tradition (Sacred Cows) -- Attempting to persuade others of one’s point of view by appealing to their feelings of reverence or respect for some tradition instead of evidence, especially when there is some more important principle or issue at risk.
Trivial Objections -- Attacking an opponent’s position by focusing critical attention on some point less significant than the main point or basic thrust of the argument.
Unrepresentative Data -- Drawing a conclusion from exceptional cases, or from unrepresentative or biased data.
Misuse of a Vague Expression -- Attempting to establish a position by means of a vague expression or in drawing an unjustified conclusion as a result of assigning a very precise meaning to another’s word, phrase, or statement that is quite imprecise in its meaning or range of application.
Wishful Thinking -- Assuming that because one wants something to be true, it is or will be true. Conversely, it consists in assuming that because one does not want something to be true, it is not or will not be true.
Drawing the Wrong Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi) -- Drawing a conclusion other than the one supported by the evidence presented in the argument.
Using the Wrong Reasons -- Attempting to support a claim with reasons other than the reasons appropriate to the claim.
"You Do It, Too" Argument -- Responding to an attack on one’s ideas or actions by accusing one’s critic or others of thinking or acting in a similar way or in a way that is equally hard to defend.
posted by g8rpal at 8:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home