Gamma Male
June 6th, 2014, 12:33 PM
When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a person who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypotheses that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies.
Just remember that this list is intended in no way as some formal rule book, but rather as a resource and guide to help people recognize errors in reasoning and sharpen their debating skills.
If you see someone using a logical fallacy, feel free to explain to them in your own words exactly why you believe their reasoning is flawed. But one thing I would ask that you do not do is simply link to this thread and say "wrong". This thread is intended as a glossary of common debate terms and tips, and is meant to help inspire people to form their own opinions using clear, valid reasoning. It is not meant to be a tool to be used to attack others opinions.
Ad Hominem/Personal Attacks: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
Straw Man: creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.
Begging The Question: assuming the conclusion of an argument in the initial premise, often in an indirect way.(e.g., free speech is beneficial to the state and cannot be taken away because it is an unalienable right which we cannot live prosperously without)
Red Herring: When the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.
Confusing Causation With Correlation: Assuming that because two things occured simultaneously one caused the other(e.g., Studies show that violent adults are more likely to have played violent videogames as children; therefore violent videogames cause violent behavior) But do they? Or are violent children just more likely to be drawn toward violent videogames?
Slippery Slope: Claiming that if something is allowed, it will lead to unrelated immoral behavior.(e.g., If we start allowing second cousins to marry, next thing you know horses will be marrying infants.)
No True Scotsman: An informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with an example, rather than denying it, this fallacy excludes the specific case without reference to any objective rule. (E.g., No real man would ever wear pink; therefore, it is impossible for men to wear pink; no true American would ever deface a flag, therefore Americans don't burn flags)
Argument From Association: Assuming an idea is invalid or immoral because of who has used or agreed with it in the past.(e.g., Hitler was a vegetarian and a mass murderer; therefore vegetarianism is bad)
Appeal To Ignorance: (argumentum ex silentio) Appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.
Two Wrongs Make A Right: Trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.
Argument From Omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."
Observational Selection: (similar to confirmation bias): Pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.
Statistics Of Small Numbers: Similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.
Shifting The Burden Of Proof: When one cannot prove his own claims, he shifts the burden of proof to his opponent and demands they disprove him(e.g., Prove aliens don't exist!)
Loaded Questions: Embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)
Appeal To Tradition: (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) Just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.
Argument From Authority: (argumentum ad verecundiam): Using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in evolution) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.
Excluded Middle: (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."
Appeal To Consequences: (argumentum ad consequentiam): An argument that concludes a premise (usually a belief) as either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. Example: some religious people belief that knowledge of evolution leads to immorality, therefore evolution proves false. Even if teaching evolution did lead to immorality, it would not imply a falsehood of evolution.
Bandwagon Fallacy: Concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For exaple many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.
Circular Reasoning: Stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)
Confirmation Bias: (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of vodoo, the believer will notice the rituals that seem to cause something to occur while ignoring the rituals which fail(which would indicate that voodoo rituals only work due to random chance or, when applied to health affects the placebo/nocebo effect
Just remember that this list is intended in no way as some formal rule book, but rather as a resource and guide to help people recognize errors in reasoning and sharpen their debating skills.
If you see someone using a logical fallacy, feel free to explain to them in your own words exactly why you believe their reasoning is flawed. But one thing I would ask that you do not do is simply link to this thread and say "wrong". This thread is intended as a glossary of common debate terms and tips, and is meant to help inspire people to form their own opinions using clear, valid reasoning. It is not meant to be a tool to be used to attack others opinions.
Ad Hominem/Personal Attacks: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
Straw Man: creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.
Begging The Question: assuming the conclusion of an argument in the initial premise, often in an indirect way.(e.g., free speech is beneficial to the state and cannot be taken away because it is an unalienable right which we cannot live prosperously without)
Red Herring: When the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.
Confusing Causation With Correlation: Assuming that because two things occured simultaneously one caused the other(e.g., Studies show that violent adults are more likely to have played violent videogames as children; therefore violent videogames cause violent behavior) But do they? Or are violent children just more likely to be drawn toward violent videogames?
Slippery Slope: Claiming that if something is allowed, it will lead to unrelated immoral behavior.(e.g., If we start allowing second cousins to marry, next thing you know horses will be marrying infants.)
No True Scotsman: An informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with an example, rather than denying it, this fallacy excludes the specific case without reference to any objective rule. (E.g., No real man would ever wear pink; therefore, it is impossible for men to wear pink; no true American would ever deface a flag, therefore Americans don't burn flags)
Argument From Association: Assuming an idea is invalid or immoral because of who has used or agreed with it in the past.(e.g., Hitler was a vegetarian and a mass murderer; therefore vegetarianism is bad)
Appeal To Ignorance: (argumentum ex silentio) Appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.
Two Wrongs Make A Right: Trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.
Argument From Omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."
Observational Selection: (similar to confirmation bias): Pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.
Statistics Of Small Numbers: Similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.
Shifting The Burden Of Proof: When one cannot prove his own claims, he shifts the burden of proof to his opponent and demands they disprove him(e.g., Prove aliens don't exist!)
Loaded Questions: Embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)
Appeal To Tradition: (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) Just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.
Argument From Authority: (argumentum ad verecundiam): Using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in evolution) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.
Excluded Middle: (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."
Appeal To Consequences: (argumentum ad consequentiam): An argument that concludes a premise (usually a belief) as either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. Example: some religious people belief that knowledge of evolution leads to immorality, therefore evolution proves false. Even if teaching evolution did lead to immorality, it would not imply a falsehood of evolution.
Bandwagon Fallacy: Concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For exaple many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.
Circular Reasoning: Stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)
Confirmation Bias: (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of vodoo, the believer will notice the rituals that seem to cause something to occur while ignoring the rituals which fail(which would indicate that voodoo rituals only work due to random chance or, when applied to health affects the placebo/nocebo effect