独家优惠奖金 100% 高达 1 BTC + 180 免费旋转

Logical Fallacies

Fallacies are statements that might sound reasonable or superficially true, but are actually flawed or dishonest.
Seeing how a large number of our daily interactions revolve around arguments and debates, I thought I’d share what I find to be the most prevalent logical fallacies.

‘Argumentum Ad Baculum’/argument to a baculum [a short stick-shaped weapon]

Argument that uses some form of coercion or unpleasant backlash (force, threat of force…) to make the listener accept a conclusion.

Examples:

Fallacy of origins, fallacy or virtue

Claim of the untrustworthiness of a certain individual due to ethnicity, gender, race, geography… The fact that the origin of an individual/idea/theory determines its worth. Stereotyping often makes use of genetic fallacies.

Examples:

‘Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem’ / Appeal to antiquity. Also called appeal to common practice

Something must be true because people have done it or believed it for a long time.

Examples:

Obvious fails with this fallacy: Slavery, Geo-centrism, tobacco, ritual human sacrifices…

‘Argumentum Ad Novitatem’ / Appeal to novelty

Something new/modern must be superior.

Examples:

‘Argumentum Ad Lazarum’ / Appeal to Lazarus, a beggar in the New Testament who receives his reward in the afterlife

Assuming that a conclusion is correct because the speaker is poor, or incorrect because the speaker is rich.

Examples:

‘Argumentum Ad Crumenam’

Assuming that a conclusion is correct because the speaker is rich, or incorrect because the speaker is poor

Examples:

‘Argumentum Ad Consequentiam’ / Appeal to the consequences

An argument must be false because if it was true, the consequences would be negative and perhaps unbearable.

Examples:

‘Argumentum Ad Hominem’ / Appeal toward the man. Also called “Poisoning the Well”

Rebutting an argument by attacking the person, motive, or any attribute of the person making the argument, instead of addressing the argument itself. It is important to note however that this reasoning is not always fallacious, especially when relating to the credibility of statements of facts. A few types exist:

a- Abusive (similar to genetic fallacies): A certain proposal/argument must be false because it was invoked by a misogynist/feminist/racist/atheist/…

b- Circumstantial: Implying that someone should accept or reject an argument because of the circumstances in their life. Just because someone is strongly motivated to defend a particular position does not mean that their argument is faulty.

Examples:

c- Tu quoque. Literally “you also”, also called “Appeal to hypocrisy”.
Asserts that an argument must be false simply because the person delivering it doesn’t consistently follow it. Though this case might prove the person a hypocrite, it does not necessarily undermine the statement or make that statement less credible from a logical perspective.

Examples:

d- Guilt by association
When a source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group is already viewed negatively.

Examples:

‘Argumentum Ad Verecundium’ / Appeal to that which is improper

This kind of fallacy attempts to capitalize on feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous person or source regardless of their knowledge on the particular topic being discussed. It is not fallacious to refer to an accepted authority if their area of expertise is within the scope of the argument.

Examples:

A subcategory of this fallacy is the Appeal to Biased Authority whereas a person is knowledgeable on the matter in question, but has an inherent bias.

Examples:

This occurs in deductive reasoning where a minor and major premise of a syllogism might or might not overlap.

Examples:

Also called the Black-and-White Fallacy, Excluded Middle, False Dilemma, or False Dichotomy

When we make an argument on the assumption that there are only two possible choices or outcomes, even though there are more, we are committing an either/or fallacy. This simplification weakens the argument even if it makes it more simple.

Examples:

By relying only on comparisons instead of constructed deductions and inductions, we are likely to end up with a faulty analogy argument.

Examples:

Also known as a logical paradox

An argument that establishes a premise that contradicts a previous premise.

Example:

Special pleading is closely related to contradictory premises. However, instead of contradiction, the person uses an exception to a rule they just mentioned.

Example:

Once the exception is mentioned, the universality of the initial statement is no longer applicable.

‘Argumentum Ad Populum’ / Appeal to the people/masses

This is done by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building a structured argument. This is often the fallacy of choice for demagogues, propagandists, advertisers and tyrants. A few approaches are often employed:

a- Bandwagon approach: If the majority of people believe it, it must be true.

Examples:

b- Patriotic approach: A belief is true because it is patriotic and those who disagree are unpatriotic.

Examples:

c- Snob approach: Asserts that all “the best people” are doing it instead of the “everybody is doing it” approach of the bandwagon.

Examples:

d- Religious approach: similar to the patriotic approach but with a religious connotation

Examples:

‘Argumentum Ad Misericordiam’, ‘Argumentum Ad Passiones’ / Appeal to pity, passion

An argument appealing to the receiver’s emotions to weigh in on what should be a logical issue. These emotions cover fear, anxiety, guilt, anger, sadness, disgust, pride, relief, hope…

Examples:

‘Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam’ / Appeal to ignorance

Not accepting an opponent’s argument because you do not understand it technically or otherwise. Rejecting an idea because a complete proof or disproof has not been agreed upon.

Examples:

‘Petitio Principii’ / Laying claim to a principle or assuming the initial point

This occurs when a person assumes as evidence the conclusion they are actually trying to prove. The person posing the argument starts by “begging the question” and then moves to the safe part of the argument.

Examples:

‘Circulus In Probando’ / Circle in proving

Similar to “begging the question” fallacy, circular reasoning is usually spread over two statements instead of one.

Examples:

‘Dicto Simpliciter’ or ‘Dicto Simpliciter Ad Dictum Secundum Quid’/ Destroying the exception, or jumping to conclusions

Insufficient use of examples or samples to justify a certain conclusion. Two common cases for this fallacy are the Fallacy of Accident where one applies a general rule to accidental circumstances and Misleading Statistic which is self explanatory.

Examples:

Often referring to ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’ / After this, therefore because of this

This fallacy is often created by mis-attributing a consequence, or inventing a non existing cause-effect relationship. The ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’ is based on mistakenly assuming that because a certain event preceded another, then it invariably caused it. This fallacy is very common due to our natural bias in identifying causation, which leads to mixing between correlation and causation.

Examples:

‘Ignorantio Elenchi’ / Ignorance of a refutation

This occurs when someone presents an argument purporting to a certain conclusion, but then directs it to prove a different conclusion. Often used by students in essays where they use a shared assumption and then go on to discuss that assumption instead of the actual question at hand. Perhaps the most common type is the RED HERRING fallacy, whereby someone attempts to divert the issue at hand toward side issues.

Examples:

This fallacy refers to attempts made to oversimplify, exaggerate or overstate an argument and then refuting that newly created argument (analogous to a fighter creating a false opponent out of straw, and proceeding to destroying it). When someone ignores the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock the “fake” arguments one by one, they are using a straw man argument.

Examples:

The following four are all fallacies of ambiguity, hence grouping them together:

Using a word in a manner that was not intended by the author in the original statement.

Examples:

From the Greek word indeterminate

Similar to equivocation, but this time the ambiguity stems from grammatical construction.

Examples:

This fallacy stems from the misapplication of deductive reasoning. It (falsely) argues that what is true for the whole is true of the individual parts.

Examples:

Also called fallacy of misplaced concreteness

When a word or an idea is treated like the actual thing that is represented by the word or idea. This fallacy stems from the fault of making an abstract thing concrete.

Examples:

This fallacy takes place when one attempts to define terms in a narrow aspect and exclude arguments that do not fall within those terms. Politicians and religious leaders often employ this fallacy in their discourse.

Examples:

‘Argumentum Ad Speculum’ / Argument from speculation

This logical fallacy is committed when, in an argument, we only use hypothetical imaginary examples. They are interesting thought experiments, but rarely form a correct method of argumentation.

Examples:

Also called the ‘Loaded Question’

This fallacy stems from phrasing a certain question or statement in such a way as to imply another unproven statement is true without evidence. Politicians and policy makers will often resort to this when speaking in public in order to animate their listeners.

Examples:

Also called The Camel’s Nose Fallacy

Like the name implies, this fallacy is one where the speaker argues that once the first step is taken, the second, third and subsequent steps will inevitably follow. The name ‘camel’s nose’ comes from a fable in which an arab miller allows his camel to stick its nose into his bedroom because of the cold temperature outside, then other parts of its body make their way inside as well until the entire camel is in the bedroom and refuses to leave.

Examples:

The reason I chose to create and share these is not for people to read and memorize them. I simply wanted to point out the fact that there are a multitude of logical fallacies that we all commit every time we get into arguments or debate a certain issue.

Being able to identify a fallacy in someone’s argument, or even better, being able to identify the flaws in our own arguments may allow us to rethink our views, interpretations and judgements, and may force us to question what we think we know and believe as fact. If this list has enabled –or ever does– any reader to simply rethink their many opinions, then its result will have been spectacular.

Add a comment

What is your view?

Send

Related posts:

I will resist

If I sit at the keyboard, not this keyboard (actually I’m not writing this at a keyboard at all). If I am tempted to sit at the piano, a real piano, with keys, hammers, dampers and strings, tempted…

Fiscal deficit

When you spend more than you earn, you clearly are in debt but when the government does it, they call it a fiscal deficit.A fiscal deficit is calculated as a percentage of gross domestic product…

Am I a Bad Friend?

The global pandemic has changed many factors of our lives, but has it changed what makes a bad friend too? Are bad friends acceptable now due to the current circumstances? What makes a bad friend…