Dr. Rosenpenis
12th December 2004, 06:00
Logical Fallacies and the art of debate (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#The%20list%20of%20logical%20fallaci es)
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition) This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way."
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person) This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance) This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic) This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition.
Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity) The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the expensive costless, etc.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition) This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers) This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right
Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public) This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority) This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.
Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument) Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing.
Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other
Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization) This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific.
Nature, appeal to This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad.
Naturalistic fallacy This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact.
Non Sequitur ("It does not follow") This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises.
Petitio principii (begging the question) This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B.
Red herring This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.
Slippery slope A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies.
Straw man This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.
Tu quoque ("you too") This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition) This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way."
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person) This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance) This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic) This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition.
Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity) The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the expensive costless, etc.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition) This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place.
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers) This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right
Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public) This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority) This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.
Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument) Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing.
Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other
Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization) This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific.
Nature, appeal to This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad.
Naturalistic fallacy This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact.
Non Sequitur ("It does not follow") This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises.
Petitio principii (begging the question) This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B.
Red herring This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.
Slippery slope A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies.
Straw man This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.
Tu quoque ("you too") This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.