Logical fallacy

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added brief descriptions of all on the list. Possibly categorise them next to tidy it up?)
(Aarguing, enhanace, arugment --> Arguing, enhance, argument. Dear oh dear!)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
*[[False dilemma]] -- Forcing the opponent into a yes-or-no answer with a multivalued question (see [[Pascal's Wager|Pascal's wager]] for an example).
 
*[[False dilemma]] -- Forcing the opponent into a yes-or-no answer with a multivalued question (see [[Pascal's Wager|Pascal's wager]] for an example).
 
*[[My enemy's enemy]] -- Supporting someone because they oppose the same people
 
*[[My enemy's enemy]] -- Supporting someone because they oppose the same people
*[[Negative proof]] -- Aarguing that something must exist because there is no evidence it does not exist.  
+
*[[Negative proof]] -- Arguing that something must exist because there is no evidence it does not exist.  
 
*[[No True Scotsman]] -- Excluding an inconveniently misbehaving member of a class to defend the class as a whole.
 
*[[No True Scotsman]] -- Excluding an inconveniently misbehaving member of a class to defend the class as a whole.
 
*''[[Non sequitur]]'' -- Giving an evasive or nonsensical answer to a challenge.
 
*''[[Non sequitur]]'' -- Giving an evasive or nonsensical answer to a challenge.
Line 28: Line 28:
 
*[[Spotlight fallacy]] -- Assuming aspects of a group from aspects from a smaller observed part of the group
 
*[[Spotlight fallacy]] -- Assuming aspects of a group from aspects from a smaller observed part of the group
 
*[[Straw man]] -- Falsifying an opponent's position for greater rhetorical flexibility.
 
*[[Straw man]] -- Falsifying an opponent's position for greater rhetorical flexibility.
*[[Style over substance fallacy]] -- Using language or rhetoric to enhanace the ''appeal'' of an arugment, but not it's validity.
+
*[[Style over substance fallacy]] -- Using language or rhetoric to enhance the ''appeal'' of an argument, but not it's validity.
 
*[[Texas sharpshooter fallacy|Texas sharpshooter]] -- A data mining fallacy and [[pattern recognition]] error where the arguer makes an ''ad hoc'' conclusion from a set of unrelated data without looking for corroborating data.
 
*[[Texas sharpshooter fallacy|Texas sharpshooter]] -- A data mining fallacy and [[pattern recognition]] error where the arguer makes an ''ad hoc'' conclusion from a set of unrelated data without looking for corroborating data.
 
*The [[Galileo fallacy]] -- This states that if someone is going against the tide of popular thinking, they must be right because the likes of Galileo were right, while in reality, Galileo was right for the more simple reason of ''he was right''.
 
*The [[Galileo fallacy]] -- This states that if someone is going against the tide of popular thinking, they must be right because the likes of Galileo were right, while in reality, Galileo was right for the more simple reason of ''he was right''.

Revision as of 07:34, 14 December 2008

A Logical fallacy is, fundamentally, an error in logic.

Common fallacies include:

  • Ad hoc -- Using an off-the-cuff explanation with no evidentiary support.
  • Ad hominem -- Attacking the opponent directly rather than addressing the opponent's idea (favorite tactic of the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and nearly everyone at Fox News); also, tu quoque, where a criticism is falsely dismissed because its author is also guilty of the charge.
  • Argument from ignorance -- Basing the truth of a premise only on whether it has been proved to your satisfaction.
  • Argument from incredulity -- Literally "that's unbelievable = that's obviously not real". This kind of thinking would quickly put an end to virtually all quantum physics.
  • Argument from adverse consequences -- Arguing against a point based on expected negative outcome.
  • Argumentum ad baculum -- Attempting to intimidate an opponent (baculum is Latin for "stick").
  • Argumentum ad populum or bandwagon -- Arguing for a point based on popularity rather than merit.
  • Argumentum ad verecundiam -- "Argument from shame". Also see emotional appeal.
  • Argument from authority -- Because someone famous/powerful/respected believes it, it must be true.
  • Balance fallacy -- Giving equal weighting to both sides of an argument, even if one really doesn't deserve the time.
  • Begging the question -- Assuming the conclusion as part of the premise (similar to circular reasoning).
  • Correlation does not equal causation -- The number of pirates on the seas has gone down, this correllates with global temperatures rising. So, do pirates cause global cooling?
  • Equivocation -- Deliberately substituting the meaning of a given word in one context for another context that is inappropriate in order to make your argument.
  • False analogy -- Creating an analogy or metaphor, then extending it to prove one's point.
  • False dilemma -- Forcing the opponent into a yes-or-no answer with a multivalued question (see Pascal's wager for an example).
  • My enemy's enemy -- Supporting someone because they oppose the same people
  • Negative proof -- Arguing that something must exist because there is no evidence it does not exist.
  • No True Scotsman -- Excluding an inconveniently misbehaving member of a class to defend the class as a whole.
  • Non sequitur -- Giving an evasive or nonsensical answer to a challenge.
  • One single proof -- Dismissing all circumstantial evidence in favor of a single "smoking gun" that may not (and may not need to) exist.
  • Poisoning the well -- Attempting to refute an argument based on the perceived veracity of the presenter.
  • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc -- Saying that because event A happened before B, A must have caused B.
  • Reductio ad Hitlerum -- Saying that something is bad because a bad person or group did it, i.e. saying painting is evil because Hitler liked to paint or ties are immoral because Bush wears ties.
  • Spotlight fallacy -- Assuming aspects of a group from aspects from a smaller observed part of the group
  • Straw man -- Falsifying an opponent's position for greater rhetorical flexibility.
  • Style over substance fallacy -- Using language or rhetoric to enhance the appeal of an argument, but not it's validity.
  • Texas sharpshooter -- A data mining fallacy and pattern recognition error where the arguer makes an ad hoc conclusion from a set of unrelated data without looking for corroborating data.
  • The Galileo fallacy -- This states that if someone is going against the tide of popular thinking, they must be right because the likes of Galileo were right, while in reality, Galileo was right for the more simple reason of he was right.
  • Causalation -- See Correlation does not equal causation.

See also

External links

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support