LOGICAL FALLACIES:
Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument.
Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified
because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in
your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.
Below is a list of some of the major fallacies. It is a good idea to be familiar with them so
you can point them out in a discussion, thereby focusing the issues where they belong
while exposing error. Detecting, pointing out and correcting Logical Fallacies in a
discussion helps clarify and keep the discussion on track. getting the upper hand is not
the goal: truth is. Nevertheless, logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is
very useful.
Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its
conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be
either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection
between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non
sequitur.
The term is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in
which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were. An
example might be: "If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me." However, there is no
direct relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people. This kind of
reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.
Formal fallacies
Appeal to Authority: (argumentum ad verecundiam) Appeals to authority are always
deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may
affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that
it will happen.
Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based
on the necessity of one or more of its premises.
Quantificational fallacies:
Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion.
Informal fallacies
Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural
(formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.
Argument from ignorance(appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam): assuming
that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be
proven false (true).
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): signifies that it has been discussed
extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
Argumentum Verbosium (Argumentum Verbosium): AKA Proof by Intimidation, or Proof
by Verbosity. It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly
presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to
sift through its minute details.
Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a faulty assumption
that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
Correlative-based fallacies
Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where
there are none.
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question,
plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that
has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used
rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's
agenda.
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy): refers to the selective excerpting of
words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.
Kettle logic: using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Mind Projection Fallacy: when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the
world really is.
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation): submission of others
to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate
details.
Red herring: a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at
hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to
speak to.
Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom,
used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto
other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.
Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam): a conclusion supported solely because
it has long been held to be true.
Genetic fallacy: where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's
origin rather than its current meaning or context.
Faulty generalizations
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence): act of pointing at individual
cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant
portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
False analogy: an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy
of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse
accident): basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
Misleading vividness: involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an
exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
Red herring fallacies
A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not
address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion.
Ad hominem: attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people):
where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it
to be so
Association fallacy (guilt by association): arguing that because two things share a
property they are the same
Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or
authority of the person asserting it.
Appeal to accomplishment: where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the
accomplishments of the proposer.
Judgmental language: insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's
judgment
Straw man: an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
REFERENCES:
Link -->> List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link -->> Non sequitur (logic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link -->> Purdue OWL: Logic in Argumentative Writing
Link -->> Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument.
Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified
because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in
your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.
Below is a list of some of the major fallacies. It is a good idea to be familiar with them so
you can point them out in a discussion, thereby focusing the issues where they belong
while exposing error. Detecting, pointing out and correcting Logical Fallacies in a
discussion helps clarify and keep the discussion on track. getting the upper hand is not
the goal: truth is. Nevertheless, logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is
very useful.
Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its
conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be
either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection
between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non
sequitur.
The term is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in
which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were. An
example might be: "If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me." However, there is no
direct relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people. This kind of
reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.
Formal fallacies
Appeal to Authority: (argumentum ad verecundiam) Appeals to authority are always
deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may
affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that
it will happen.
Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based
on the necessity of one or more of its premises.
Quantificational fallacies:
Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion.
Informal fallacies
Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural
(formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.
Argument from ignorance(appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam): assuming
that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be
proven false (true).
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): signifies that it has been discussed
extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
Argumentum Verbosium (Argumentum Verbosium): AKA Proof by Intimidation, or Proof
by Verbosity. It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly
presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to
sift through its minute details.
Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a faulty assumption
that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
Correlative-based fallacies
Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where
there are none.
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question,
plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that
has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used
rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's
agenda.
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy): refers to the selective excerpting of
words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.
Kettle logic: using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Mind Projection Fallacy: when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the
world really is.
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation): submission of others
to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate
details.
Red herring: a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at
hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to
speak to.
Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom,
used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto
other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.
Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam): a conclusion supported solely because
it has long been held to be true.
Genetic fallacy: where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's
origin rather than its current meaning or context.
Faulty generalizations
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence): act of pointing at individual
cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant
portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
False analogy: an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy
of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse
accident): basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
Misleading vividness: involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an
exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
Red herring fallacies
A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not
address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion.
Ad hominem: attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Poisoning the well: a type of ad hominem where adverse information about
a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the
target person says
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat): ana target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the
target person says
argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people):
where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it
to be so
Association fallacy (guilt by association): arguing that because two things share a
property they are the same
Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or
authority of the person asserting it.
Appeal to accomplishment: where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the
accomplishments of the proposer.
Judgmental language: insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's
judgment
Straw man: an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
REFERENCES:
Link -->> List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link -->> Non sequitur (logic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link -->> Purdue OWL: Logic in Argumentative Writing
Link -->> Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
