This is not a complete list of logical fallacies; only those I encounter most often. Further study is recommended if you find this subject even slightly compelling.
1: The ‘SPECIAL PLEADING’ fallacy:
Making it sound as though a perspective deserves additional exceptions once shown to be a bad one.
EXAMPLE: Miraculous healing fails to display effectiveness under controlled testing, but Jill says the scientists involved just didn’t have enough faith when testing to produce a positive result. She was willing to trust the scientific method until it came to this result; at which point she heaped extra caveats upon it where she never had before.
2: The ‘BANDWAGON’ fallacy:
Attempting to use the popularity of an idea as evidence of its validity.
EXAMPLE: Jack insisted that a person currently on trial for homicide must be guilty, because it was the opinion of the public’s majority that the person was guilty; ignoring hard evidence which proved them innocent. The entire world believing a thing to be true doesn’t make it so. Reality is what it is, even if no one believes it.
3: The ‘BLACK-OR-WHITE’ fallacy:
Implying that there are only two possible options, when more exist.
EXAMPLE: Jill tells her children that they can only be Capitalists or Socialists; failing to acknowledge that there’s plenty of middle-ground for various combinations of those extremes, as well as other economic structures to consider. Nuance is usually required if you mean to think with integrity.
4: The ‘SLIPPERY SLOPE’ fallacy:
Making it sound as though unlikely things will happen if we go in a certain direction, while failing to argue against the true point of contention in a substantial way.
EXAMPLE: Jack says that if we lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 16, mothers will soon think it’s okay to give alcohol (and even deadlier drugs) to their newborn babies. The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they often ignore the already-defined boundaries; in this case, the barrier to entry being argued for is legal access to alcohol at age 16—nothing else. This slope ain’t slippery. And, making it sound like the argument was to have no legal drinking age at all just makes you look silly.
5: The ‘FALSE CAUSE’ fallacy:
Implying that relationships exist as cause and effect without clarifying whether what’s observed is truly due to cause and effect, or simply due to coincidence.
EXAMPLE: Jill presents a graph, showing that a new animal goes extinct for every apple we buy; mistaking correlation for causation, and simply asserting that we should no longer buy apples. While the graph’s data isn't misleading, her use of the data is, because she provides no evidence as to how the data being shown is related. In reality, it most likely only looks related, thanks to chance. If we attempted to prove causation for this correlation, we'd quickly determine that buying apples does not set in motion a chain of events which always leads to random extinctions.
6: The ‘STRAWMAN’ fallacy:
Making it sound as though someone said or argued in favor of something they never did.
EXAMPLE: Jack says he’s a vegetarian, so it’s safe to assert that he hates meat-eaters. But, this is putting words in Jack’s mouth. In reality, he may have no issue with meat-eaters.
7: The ‘LOADED QUESTION’ fallacy:
Posing a question which makes a person seem guilty of something because of a misleading assumption couched within the question itself.
EXAMPLE: Knowing only that she's talking to someone who's recently been divorced, Jill asks the person why they enjoy being an adulterer. If we imagine that gambling addiction is what actually caused the divorce, Jill’s poor choice in question becomes obvious. The problem is that Jill doesn't know for sure that she's talking to an adulterer, but still chooses to ask a question which makes the person appear to be one. This tactic is often used to undermine the credibility of people making reasonable arguments.
8: The ‘GAMBLER’S’ fallacy:
Believing the base odds of something static will change, depending upon the number of tries previously attempted.
EXAMPLE: Jack kept placing bets after repeated failures to land a 4 on a 20-sided dice, because he believed his odds of success were increasing with each failure; when, in reality, the odds of him landing a 4 were always the same, no matter how many times he rolled the dice.
9: The ‘AD HOMINEM’ fallacy:
Attacking someone’s character, instead of the substance of their argument(s).
EXAMPLE: Having heard a sound argument against warrantless wiretapping, Jill responds by insisting that the perspective can’t be taken seriously, because it’s coming from someone who’s been to prison twice. But, a person's having been to prison has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not their arguments are valid.
10: The ‘APPEAL TO AUTHORITY’ fallacy:
Implying that something must be so, simply because an authority figure insists that it is.
EXAMPLE: Jack says that climate change isn't manmade, because he read about a scientist who still doubts its validity, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While Jack can point to someone who he thinks is an authority, he's cherry-picked his example; ignoring the majority of scientists who form the subject’s consensus. His argument also fails to offer evidence of his claim that climate change isn’t manmade, instead, shifting the burden of proof to the scientist he’s leaning on as his chosen authority.
11: The ‘BURDEN OF PROOF’ fallacy:
Insisting that the person with something to prove isn’t the person who’s making the unproven claim.
EXAMPLE: Jill claims there are bedbugs living many miles beneath the surface of the Earth, and that her claim is true because no one has proved her wrong. But, Jill made a claim without evidence, so it falls on her to prove that claim; not upon the rest of the world to disprove it. Only when someone claims Jill is wrong have they taken a burden of proof upon themselves. Many wrongly believe that the burden of proof can’t exist on both sides of a debate. But, wherever a claim exists, unsupported by evidence, the burden of proof remains with whoever made that claim.
12: The ‘COMPOSITION/DIVISION’ fallacy:
Assuming we can see the big picture based upon incomplete details, and vice versa.
EXAMPLE: Jack says he stopped for gas last night, then went directly to his brother’s house; where he stayed over. He has a receipt from the gas station, so it’s safe to say everything he’s told us is true. But, all we know with reasonable certainty is that Jack stopped for gas. Even if we had proof of Jack staying at his brother’s house as well, it would still be wrongheaded to assume that Jack is truthful in all things, or even that his story isn’t missing pieces. This is to say that large windows don’t assure us of a large house, and a small house doesn’t assure us of small windows (or any windows at all).
13: The ‘APPEAL TO EMOTION’ fallacy:
Manipulating emotional responses, instead of using sound arguments.
EXAMPLE: Jill asked the public to imagine what it must feel like to be brutally raped, and also not have anyone believe or support you when you’re brave enough to tell the world about it; this emotional appeal coming after video evidence had surfaced, proving that the rape in question didn’t take place as described. When evidence mounted against Jill’s claim, she chose an appeal to emotion, which has no merit in discussions about the discernible reality.
14: The ‘YOU TOO’ fallacy:
Avoiding having to answer criticism by offering only criticism in return.
EXAMPLE: Jack reminded his mother that she lied about the existence of Santa Claus when he was caught in the lie he told about having paid their rent on time. The issue here is that, if Jack’s reliability is being questioned, his mother’s record is irrelevant to whether or not Jack is trustworthy.
15: The ‘APPEAL TO NATURE’ fallacy:
Arguing that something wins by default because it is ‘natural’.
EXAMPLE: Jill argues that unfiltered river water is what we should be drinking, because it’s natural; unlike the ‘chemically purified’ water you get from stores, or your home tap. The problem? Her argument overlooks the very real dangers in drinking unclean water, however ‘natural’ it might be. Natural does not equate to 'good for humans' in a whole lot of situations.
16: The ‘PERSONAL INCREDULITY’ fallacy:
Dismissing an argument because of its complexity.
EXAMPLE: Jack told his teacher and classmates that the Earth couldn’t be round, spinning at tremendous speed, and moving around a star, because we’d all be rolling about, get flung into space, and fall into the sun if these things were true. His failure to understand the complexity of how gravity holds us in place on the Earth doesn’t invalidate the evidence-based arguments for the existence of gravity.
17: The ‘NO TRUE SCOTSMAN’ fallacy:
Introducing purity as an appeal to relevant criticisms, or flawed arguments.
EXAMPLE: Jill says no true vegan could ever like the smell of cooked meat after a fellow vegan argues that they do. The problem here is that the person Jill’s talking to could simply make an argument for purity in the opposite direction (by saying only true vegans like the smell of cooked meat), and they’d find themselves no closer to settling this debate. Scotsman argumentation is purposely pedantic, and absent of nuance. It's a way of unfairly moving the goalposts in order to avoid being wrong.
18: The ‘AMBIGUITY’ fallacy:
Misrepresenting the most common usages of words or phrases to dismiss personal responsibility, or the reality of something.
EXAMPLE: Jack said he wasn’t to blame for having hit a child with his car while driving through a local neighborhood, because the signs said ‘slow children at play’, and the child he hit was not slow at all. What the sign actually communicates is that he should be driving slow because children commonly play in said area, and Jack knows this; making his dodge intellectually dishonest. Ambiguity is toothless word-salad, designed to make losing arguments appear to be winners.
19: The ‘TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER’ fallacy:
Painting one’s own ‘target’ among a cluster of cherry-picked data in an attempt to increase the credibility of the argument(s) being made.
EXAMPLE: Jill claims heroin must be a safe drug, because two of the five healthiest countries on Earth also have high heroin addiction rates. This is bad because it’s potentially incorrect if we look at the big picture. Ignoring everything but the cherry-picked data, and asserting common cause (where coincidental correlation may be all that exists) can and usually does lead to a false conclusion.
20: The ‘FALLACY’ fallacy:
Insisting a claim is incorrect because a fallacy was committed when arguing in its favor.
EXAMPLE: Jack hears his debate opponent use the ‘Appeal to Emotion’ fallacy while arguing that cigarette smoking increases cancer risk. Jack then tells the audience that his opponent’s claim must be wrong because they employed a logical fallacy; leading the audience to believe that cigarette smoke is perfectly safe. We could use any number of fallacies when talking about reality, but it wouldn't invalidate reality; just like no amount of people believing a fake thing will ever make that thing real. Ultimately, the evidence is all that matters. And, letting a thought error detract from this is how you end up living in Stupidsville.
21: The ‘ANECDOTAL’ fallacy:
Using ‘personal experience’ testimonials, or isolated examples to dismiss valid arguments, and statistical data.
EXAMPLE: Jill told the audience about her mother’s continual casino wins as evidence that gambling is a sound investment; adding that her mother claims the secret to her success is owed to always kissing a rabbit's foot before setting foot in a casino. The problem is that her her mother’s experience not only flies in the face of the statistical realities most of us would find in losing money at a casino, but also asserts a ‘secret to success’ which has already been disproven by controlled studies (that secret being the efficacy of wishful thinking). Jill is using anecdote to ignore reality in favor of what she would like reality to be. Sadly, that's not how any of this works.
22: The ‘GENETIC’ fallacy:
Claiming something can be supported or dismissed purely on the basis of where or who it comes from.
EXAMPLE: Jack says the police shouldn’t interview witnesses from the south side of town, because the people there lie entirely too much to be truthful. Jack has no supporting evidence for his claim, and is simply making a generalized statement based upon his own biases. Jack has poor critical thinking skills. Don't be like Jack. He's a dick.
23: The ‘BEGGING THE QUESTION’ fallacy:
Offering circular arguments, or those with a conclusion built into the premise.
EXAMPLE: Jill insists that ghosts are real, because her mother told her they were real, and her mother is incapable of lying; which begs the question of whether or not her mother can be counted on as a reliable source in all things she happens to believe. The argument is also circular, because Jill’s designed her logical framework to circle the two assertions (that her mother can’t lie, and that ghosts are real); meaning she leans upon one unfounded assertion whenever the other begins looking weak, in a purposely ignorant effort to avoid ever being wrong.
24: The ‘MIDDLE GROUND’ fallacy:
Insisting that a compromise between two sides of an argument will provide us with something valuable.
EXAMPLE: Jack’s brother insists that drinking a cup of bleach once per month is good for you, but his sister says drinking half a cup is better. So, Jack concludes that drinking 3/4 a cup of bleach is the healthiest option, because it doesn't fully exclude either of his sibling's opinions. The problem with middle-ground is that it ignores reality. In this example, both siblings are wrong. And, the only way they'd both be right is if they accepted the testable evidence; in which case there'd be no argument. Compromise, in matters of knowable things, teaches us to devalue facts.
25: The ‘RED HERRING’ fallacy:
Using diversion to avoid addressing the argument(s) being made.
EXAMPLE: Jill is asked why renewable energies aren’t what’s best for the health of the planet, but responds by saying that the people who work in non-renewable energy deserve better than to lose their jobs. The issue here is that the topic of jobs is meant to divert attention away from the fact that Jill is either unwilling or unable to answer the question as it was posed to her.
26: The ‘POST HOC’ fallacy:
Assuming that one event caused another, simply because one happened first.
EXAMPLE: Jack ran over a squirrel. The next day, his car wouldn’t start. He claims the car would still be starting if he hadn’t run over the squirrel. But, this is fallacious, because hitting the squirrel may have nothing to do with his car not starting.
27: The ‘HASTY GENERALIZATION’ fallacy:
Rushing a conclusion, with bias, or woefully incomplete evidence as its basis.
EXAMPLE: Jill wants to stop watching the movie you recommended; stating that, because the opening credits didn’t hold her attention, the rest of the movie will be bad. The problem with this is that, while Jill may not have enjoyed the opening credits, she’s yet to meet any characters, or hear a single line of dialogue; making her assertion one of biased ignorance.
28: The ‘MORAL EQUIVALENCE’ fallacy:
Suggesting that a small offense is equal to a large evil.
EXAMPLE: Jack says that use of the term ‘Karen’ is just as bad as religious extremists calling for the worldwide beheading of non-believers. If you don’t understand what’s wrong here, then I’m sure you’ll agree there’s no harm in trading your thousand dollars for my thousand pennies, because they’re essentially the same thing.
***Copyright of Shane Windham, 2020. All Rights Reserved. This post contains text directly pulled from 'A Gift Book of Insight (for my son)' by Shane Windham -- Coming soon to Amazon.***
No comments:
Post a Comment