Fallacies

Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)

o An argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer don't accept, but which you know the listener does not accept to show that his position is coherent o Genetic Fallacy- Focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it: they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them o Ex: Demoski would say that because he's religious

Irrelevant Appeals

o Attempt to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. o Ex: An appeal to pity, which can be very effective, persuades using emotion—specifically, sympathy—rather than reason.

Genetic Fallacy

o Is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit. o Ex: My mommy told me that the tooth fairy is real. Therefore: The tooth fairy is real.

Bandwagon Fallacy

o Is committee by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true o Ex: Increasingly, people are coming to believe that Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being

Gambler's Fallacy

o Is the fallacy of assuming that short-term deviations from probability will be corrected in the short-term. o Ex: This coin has landed heads-up nine times in a row. Therefore: It will probably land tails-up next time it is tossed

Affirming Consequent

o The fallacy of affirming the consequent is committed by arguments that have the form: (1) If A then B (2) B Therefore: (3) A o Ex: If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he'd go and have a word with the boss. There goes Fred to have a word with the boss. Therefore: Fred wants to get me sacked.

'No True Scotsman' Fallacy

o a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one's position. o Ex: Angus puts sugar on his porridge. No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Therefore: Angus is not a (true) Scotsman. Therefore: Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

Naturalistic Fallacy

o alleged fallacy of inferring a statement of the latter kind from a statement of the former kind. o Ex: Feeling envy is only natural. Therefore: There's nothing wrong with feeling envy.

Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy

o applies a general statement too broadly. If one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalisation fallacy o Ex: (1) Children should be seen and not heard. Little Wolfgang Amadeus is a child. Therefore: Little Wolfgang Amadeus shouldn't be heard.

Red Herring

o as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. o Ex: "You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing! How would he feel if you made him sit it again?"

Appeal to Wealth

o committed by any argument that assumes that someone or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more expensive. o Ex: My computer cost more than yours. Therefore: My computer is better than yours.

Appeal to Poverty

o committed when it is assumed that a position is correct because it is held by the poor. o Ex: The working classes respect family and community ties. Therefore: Respect for family and community ties is virtuous

Hasty Generalisation

o draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case. It is the reverse of a sweeping generalisation. o Ex: My Christian / atheist neighbour is a real grouch. Therefore: Christians / atheists are grouches.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

o falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we'll be doing something that we don't want to do. o Ex: If you buy a Green Day album, then next you'll be buying Buzzcocks albums, and before you know it you'll be a punk with green hair and everything. You don't want to become a punk. Therefore: You shouldn't buy a Green Day album.

Arguing from Ignorance

o infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false. o Ex: No one has been able to disprove the existence of God. Therefore: God exists.

Appeal to Authority

o is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true. o Ex: (Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil. Therefore: No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.

Appeal to Consequences

o is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. o Ex: If believe in God then you'll find a kind of fulfilment in life that you've never felt before. Therefore: God exists.

Appeal to Force (Ad Baculum)

o is an attempt to persuade using threats. o Ex: If you don't accept that the Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around, then you'll be excommunicated from the Church. Therefore: The Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around.

Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning

o is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. o The Bible affirms that it is inerrant. Whatever the Bible says is true. Therefore: The Bible is inerrant.

False Dilemma/Bifurcation Fallacy

o is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. o Ex: Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into existence out of nothing. The universe didn't come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from nothing). Therefore: A Creator brought the universe into existence.

Complex Question Fallacy

o is committed when a question is asked (a) that rests on a questionable assumption, and (b) to which all answers appear to endorse that assumption. o Ex: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This is a complex question because it presupposes that you used to beat your wife, a presupposition that either answer to the question appears to endorse

Tu Quoque Fallacy

o is committed when it is assumed that because someone else has done a thing there is nothing wrong with doing it. o Ex: The Romans kept slaves. Therefore: We can keep slaves too.

Cum Hoc Fallacy

o is committed when it is assumed that because two things occur together, they must be causally related. o Ex: Nestle, the makers of the breakfast cereal Shredded Wheat, once ran an advertising campaign in which the key phrase was this: "People who eat Shredded Wheat tend to have healthy hearts." This is very carefully phrased. It does not explicitly state that there is any causal connection between eating Shredded Wheat and having a healthy heart, but it invites viewers of the advertisements to make the connection; the implication is there. Whether or not there is any such connection, the mere fact that the two things are correlated does not prove that there is such a connection. In tempting viewers to infer that eating Shredded Wheat is good for your heart, Nestle are tempting viewers to commit a fallacy.

Subjectivist Fallacy

o is committed when someone resists the conclusion of an argument not by questioning whether the argument's premises support its conclusion, but by treating the conclusion as subjective when it is in fact objective. o Ex: Your argument concludes that p is objectively true. P is subjective. Therefore: Your argument fails.

Straw Man Fallacy

o is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. o Ex: Trinitarianism holds that three equals one. Three does not equal one. Therefore: Trinitarianism is false.

Weak Analogy

o is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The weak analogy fallacy (or "false analogy", or "questionable analogy") is committed when the comparison is not strong enough. o Ex: William Paley's argument from design suggests that a watch and the universe are similar (both display order and complexity), and therefore infers from the fact that watches are the product of intelligent design that the universe must be a product of intelligent design too.

Appeal to Novelty

o is the opposite of an appeal to antiquity. Appeals to novelty assume that the newness of an idea is evidence of its truth. They are thus also related to the bandwagon fallacy. o Ex: String theory is the most recent development in physics. Therefore: String theory is true.

Appeal Antiquity/Tradition

o is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. o Ex: Religion dates back many thousands of years (whereas atheism is a relatively recent development). Therefore: Some form of religion is true.

Post Hoc Fallacy

o means, literally, "after this therefore because of this." The post hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because one thing occurred after another, it must have occurred as a result of it o One example of the post hoc flaw is the evidence often given for the efficacy of prayer. When someone reasons that as they prayed for something and it then happened, it therefore must have happened because they prayed for it, they commit the post hoc fallacy. The correlation between the prayer and the event could result from coincidence, rather than cause, so does not prove that prayer works.

Appeal to Popularity

o suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. o Ex: Most people believe in a god or 'higher power'. Therefore: God, or at least a higher power, must exist.

Appeal to Pity

o to persuade using emotion—specifically, sympathy—rather than evidence. o Ex: Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on the strength of appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses, anti-abortion materials seek to disgust people, and so turn them against the practice of abortion.