| layout | title |
|---|---|
default |
Logical Fallacies |
Using evidence from an unnamed 'expert' or 'study' or generalized group (like 'scientists') to claim something is true.
'They say that it takes 7 years to digest chewing gum.'
Claiming something is true because an (a person holding authority) 'expert' says it is.
'Over 4000 prominent scientists and engineers dispute global warming.'
Claiming something is true because it's commonly practiced.
'This bank has some problems with corruption, but there's nothing going on here that doesn't go on in all other banks.'
A claim is true simply because it has not been proven false (or false because it has not been proven true).
'Nobody has proven to me there's a God. So I know there is no God.'
Because a claim sounds unbelievable, it must not be true.
'The eye is an incredibly complex biomechanical machine with thousands of interlocking parts. How could that exist without an intelligent designer?'
Supposing that, if someone is rich or something is expensive, then it affects the truth of the claim.
'If it costs more, it must be better.'
Supposing something is better because it is new or newer.
'Awesome! The latest version of this operating system is going to make my computer faster and better..'
Claiming something is true because the majority of people believe it.
'Milk is essential for healthy bones.'
Assuming because something could happen, it will inevitably happen.
'There are billions of galaxies with billions of stars in the universe, so there must be another planet with intelligent life on it.'
Claiming something is true because it's (apparently) always been that way.
'The government has always existed, therefore society cannot live without one.'
Arguing a belief is false because it implies something you'd rather not believe.
'That can't be the Senator on that sex-tape. If it were, he'd be lying about not knowing her, and he's not the kind of man who would lie.'
An argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side.
'Before you know there will be more mosques than churches.'
Using an irrelevant compliment to slip in an unfounded claim which is accepted along with the compliment.
'Intelligent and sophisticated readers will of course recognize a fallacy like this when they read one.'
Making your claim seem more true by drawing a comparison with the 'good' natural world.
'Of course homosexuality is unnatural. You don't see same-sex animals copulating.'
Attempt to induce pity to sway opponents.
'The former dictator is an old, dying man. It's wrong to make him stand trial for these alleged offenses.'
Presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear absurd.
'Faith in God is like believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.'
Dismissing a claim by appealing to personal bias against the claimant.
'Don't you just hate how those rich Liberal Hollywood actors go on TV to promote their agendas?'
Suggesting a claim is true or false just because you strongly hope it is.
'The President wouldn't lie. He's our leader and a good American.'
Discounting evidence arrived at by systematic search or testing in favor of a few first hand stories.
'I'm going to carry on smoking. My grandfather smoked 40 a day until he died at the age of 90.'
Assuming that characteristics or beliefs of some of a group applies to the entire group.
'Recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by Islamic groups, therefore all terrorists are Muslims.'
Assuming that characteristics or beliefs of a group automatically apply to any individual member.
'Many Conservatives wish to ban gay marriage, discredit climate change, and deny evolution, therefore all conservatives are homophobic, anti-environment creationists.'
Assuming that because something is nicely designed or beautifully visualized, it's more valid or better.
'Elementary OS is the most well designed and best looking Linux distribution, therefore it is clearly superior.'
Assuming a history of independent outcomes will affect future outcomes.
'I've flipped a coin 10 times in a row and it's been heads each time, therefore the next coin flip is more likely to come up with tails.'
Drawing a general conclusion from a tiny sample.
'I just got cut off by the woman driver in front. Women can't drive.'
Drawing a quick conclusion without fairly considering relevant (and easily available) evidence.
'She wants birth control in her medical cover? What a slut!'
Assuming because two opposing arguments have merit, the answer must lie somewhere in between them.
'I rear ended your car but I don't think I should pay for the damage. You think I should pay for all the damage. A fair compromise would be to split the bill in half.'
Assuming that the only option on the table is perfect success, then rejecting anything that will not work perfectly.
'What's the point of these anti-drunk driving ad campaigns? People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.'
Rejecting a claim because of a belief that truth is relative to a person or group.
'That's perhaps true for you, but it's not true for me.'
Assuming an observation from a small sample size applies to an entire group.
'This large shoe manufacturer employs children in sweatshops. Therefore all shoe companies are evil child-slave owners!'
Applying a general rule too broadly.
'Those young men rioted because they lacked morally responsible fathers.'
Assuming because two things share a property, that makes them the same thing.
'A theory can mean an unproven idea. Scientists use the term 'the Theory of Evolution', therefore evolution is an unproven idea.'
Assuming there's only one explanation for the observation you're making.
'Marriage often results in the birth of children, so that's the only reason why it exists.'
A conclusion is derived from premises based on the conclusion.
'Stripping privacy rights only matters to those with something to hide. You must have something to hide if you oppose stripping privacy rights.'
Claiming two events that occur together must have a cause-and-effect relationship. Also known as 'Confusing Causation with Correlation'
'Teenagers in gangs listen to rap music with violent themes. Rap music inspires violence in teenagers.'
There isn't only one explanation for an outcome, so it's false to assume the cause based on the effect.
'If you get a degree, you'll get a good job. If you don't get a degree, you won't get a good job.'
Claiming one event must have caused the other when a third (unseen) event is probably the cause.
'We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS.'
Claiming that because one event follows another, it was also caused by it.
'Since the election of the President, more people than ever are unemployed, therefore the President has damaged the economy.'
Assuming that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.
'Sure - the conditions in this prison are cruel and dehumanizing, but these inmates are criminals!'
Trying to save a cherished belief by repeatedly revising the argument to explain away problems.
'But apart from better sanitation, medicine, education, irrigation, public health, roads, a freshwater system and public order.. What have the Romans done for us?'
Hiding other contributory factors and supporting the truth of your claim without any evidence other than the conclusion of your claim.
'All illegal drugs are harmful - that's why they're illegal.'
Generalizing from an unrepresentative sample to increase the strength of your argument.
'Our website poll found that 90% of internet users oppose online piracy laws.'
Looking only for evidence that supports your argument while ignoring contradicting evidence.
'It's obvious – 9/11 was an American-government led conspiracy to justify the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. No plane hit the Pentagon. The Twin Towers collapse was a controlled demolition… etc.'
Presenting two opposing options as the two options while hiding alternatives.
'We're going to have to cut the education budget or go deeper into debt. We can't afford to go deeper into debt, so we'll have to cut the education budget.'
An outright untruth repeated knowingly as a fact.
'I did not have sexual relations with that woman.'
Describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is a rare occurrence, to convince someone that it is a true.
'After legalizing gay marriage, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primary school children were given homosexual fairy tales and even manuals of explicit homosexual advocacy.'
Introducing irrelevant material to the argument to distract and lead towards a different conclusion.
'Why should the senator account for irregularities in his expenses? After all, there are senators who have done far worse things.'
Assuming a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related (negative) events.
'If we legalize marijuana, more people will start using crack and heroin, then we'd have to legalize those too.'
Intentionally failing to use significant and relevant information which counts against one's own conclusion.
'This Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.'
Offering a claim that cannot be proven false, because there is no way to check if it is false or not.
'He lied because he's possessed by demons.'
Bypassing the argument by launching an irrelevant attack on the person rather than their claim.
'Anyone that says we should build the Ground Zero Mosque is an American-hating liberal.'
I don't need to prove my claim - you must prove it is false.
'I maintain long-term solar cycles are the cause of global warming. Show me I'm wrong.'
Stating a claim isn't credible only because of the advocate's interest in their claim.
'A study into the health risks of mobile phones involved mobile phone companies, therefore the study cannot be trusted.'
Attacking the cause or origin of a claim, rather than it's substance.
'Of course, mainstream liberal media aren't going to say Barack Obama is a Muslim.'
Discrediting an idea or claim by associating it with an undesirable person or group.
'Oh you want to relax the anti-terrorism laws just like the terrorists want us to do. Are you saying you support terrorism?'
Creating a distorted or simplified caricature of your opponent's argument, and the arguing against that.
'You say Israel should stop building settlements on the West Bank in violation of the treaty, so you're saying Israel doesn't have the right to be a nation?'
Content from Logical Defence Android app by LukeStoneHm and contributors
Adaptation for the web by Pavel Peganov
Built at: {{ site.time }}