Material Fallacies

Ad populum - The big lie

"The Big Lie appeals to this process of unconscious reasoning: "If most of 'my kind of people' believe an idea that seems absurd, the idea must be true, for people like me would never fall for that big a lie."

Fallacies of diversion

All of these fallacies are red herrings. They try and divert your attention away from the argument, point or issue.

Metaphysical - Fallacy of accident: confusing the accidental with the essential

E.g. A great nose indicates a great man.

Metaphysical - Fallacy of misplaced concreteness: confusing the abstract with the concrete

E.g. I love humanity; it's people I don't like. (Linus from Peanuts)

Metaphysical - Confusing the natural with the common

E.g. It is natural for women to wear shorts.

Metaphysical - Reductionism

E.g. Man is nothing but a mass of cellular tissue.

Metaphysical - Confusing essence and existence

E.g. Man's essence is simply to exist.

Metaphysical - Confusing quantity with quality

E.g. Thousands of people attend this church, and thus it must be faithful to God's word.

Metaphysical - Confusing logical physical and psychological causes

E.g. You come from a "blue collar" (working class) family, so you must be a socialist

Procedural - Shifting the burden of proof

If you make a claim, you have to back it up. You can't make a claim and say it's true until proven false. This fallacy occurs when you do that. E.g. "There are fields of cotton candy on Pluto." "No there aren't." "You can't prove there aren't so there must be."

Procedural - Assuming that refuting an argument refutes it's conclusion

In this fallacy someone points out their opponent's error and, based off of that error, thinks to have settled the matter because the arguer has made a mistake. They do not give another option.

Formal fallacies

They are mistakes concerning the form of an argument. They are made in the third act of the mind.

Material fallacies

They are mistakes concerning what terms mean and how they are used or the content of an argument. They are made in the first act of the mind.

Oversimplification - Composition

This fallacy argues that what is true of part is true of the whole. E.g. Every soccer player on that team is great, so the team itself must be great. E.g. "There's a bug on this blade of grass." "My goodness, you certainly have a buggy lawn."

Oversimplification - Division

This fallacy argues that what is true of the whole is true of part. E.g. Orange juice is healthy. It has 21 grams of sugar per cup, so 21 grams of sugar must be healthy too.

Diversion - Ad hominem

This fallacy attacks a person's character, something they have done, or where they came from instead of their beliefs.

Ad hominem - Genetic fallacy

This fallacy consists in substituting logical reasons to do things for suspicious and usual false personal motives. E.g. Jones said he didn't murder Gary, but Jones was born in Syria, so he must have murdered Gary.

Ad hominem - Tu quoque

This fallacy consists of accusing your critic of the same thing your critic accuses you of, rather than defending yourself against his criticism. (N.B. We shouldn't really worry about who says something. We should worry about what they're saying.) E.g. Don't tell me not to eat pop tarts because you eat them all the time.

Ad populum - Snob appeal

This fallacy consists of appealing to a select group of people. E.g. Those who desire the best of everything invariably ask for Cerebos salt.

Diversion - Ad ignorantium

This fallacy consists of arguing that something is true because it can't be proven false or vice versa. E.g. Of course Santa is real. You can't prove he isn't.

Oversimplification - Quoting out of context

This fallacy consists of quoting someone but leaving out crucial details such as the context and audience of the quote. E.g. Matthew 19 says, "With God all things are possible," so I guess pigs can fly!

Ad populum

This fallacy contains many sub fallacies such as flattery (the appeal to the gallery), identification (I'm one of you), everybody does it, the polls say, appeal to prejudice, snob appeal, and the big lie.

Ad hominem

This fallacy contains several sub-fallacies such as poisoning the well, tu quoque, and the genetic fallacy.

Oversimplification - Stereotyping

This fallacy is a generalization normally based on race or sex that leaves no room for exceptions. E.g. You're tall; you must play basketball.

Argumentation - Complex question

This fallacy is a question that can't be answered without "begging" another question. You're trapped no matter what answer you give. E.g. Do you still steal cookies from the cookie jar?

Diversion - Appeal to shame

This fallacy is committed when a person tries to motivate someone to do something because of the shame they would feel if they didn't do it. E.g. You're going to talk to teenagers about chastity? You'll be a laughing stock. They'll call you a Puritan behind your back, and a weirdo. Prepare for a big blush.

Diversion - Appeal to pity

This fallacy is committed when a person uses an argument based on pity to try and convince someone of something. E.g. Mom, I shouldn't be punished for cheating. I only did it because class has been super stressful.

Inductive - False analogy

This fallacy is committed when one says that two things, which are not related, are related or assumes that since two things are similar in one way they are similar in all ways. E.g. The Seahawks have great defense, and I had a great defense in the debate, so I must be great at football too.

Diversion - Ad populum

This fallacy is committed when someone tries to prove his point by arguing that he is right because what he is doing/believing is popular or tries to get someone else to do something because "everyone else" is doing it.

Argumentation - Non sequitur

This fallacy is committed when the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Even though all invalid arguments could be non sequiturs, the material non sequitur fallacy is based on the content of the proposition not the logical from. E.g. I had chicken for lunch today, so I will have a lot of homework tomorrow. N.B. To keep from confusing non sequitur and post hoc remember that non sequitur doesn't have anything to do with a sequence of events while post hoc does.

Argumentation - Contradictory premises

This fallacy is committed when the premises in an argument contradict each other. E.g. There are no such things as universals.

Argumentation - Irrelevant conclusion

This fallacy is committed when the premises prove a different conclusion than the one that is trying to be probed. The problem is not in your premises. Your premises are doing good work. They just produce this oddball conclusion. The conclusion itself is the problem. It doesn't follow from the premises. E.g. Socialized medicine is necessary because many poor people die due to lack of adequate basic medical care.

Argumentation - Circular reasoning

This fallacy is committed when you use the conclusion to prove the premise after using the premise to prove the conclusion. E.g. "Mom, can I go see this movie? It's so great; I have to see it!!" "Why is it so great? "Because everyone is seeing it." "Why is everyone seeing it?" "Because it's so great."

Language - Accent

This fallacy is often caused by the speakers expressions of some sort, voice inflection, sarcasm, etc. E.g. My MOM told me I can't have cookies. (But I could ask Dad...) vs. My mom told me I can't have cookies. (But you can have some...) vs. My mom told me I can't have COOKIES. (But I can totally have cake...)

Argumentation - False assumption

This fallacy is similar to begging the question, but it's normally used for joking. It occurs when the definition of a word is presupposed. E.g. Murder is wrong and therefore abortion is wrong.

Inductive - Argument from silence

This fallacy occurs when a person draws a conclusion based on another person's silence about an issue. E.g. Timothy never talks about pets he might have, so he must not have any.

Procedural - "Refuting" and argument by refuting it's conclusion

This fallacy occurs when the arguer does not refute the argument but simply the conclusion. You cannot refute only the conclusion without first refuting the argument by pointing out an ambiguity, logical fallacy, or false premise.

Procedural - Substituting explanations for proofs

This fallacy occurs when the person arguing treats his explanations as proofs. They aren't. They don't prove anything. They just open the door.

Inductive - Hasty generalization

This fallacy occurs when too few specific examples are used to prove a general conclusion. E.g. The Seahawks won their first two games. They're going to win the Super Bowl.

Procedural - Answering another argument than the one given

This fallacy occurs when you change the original meaning of the question or argument that has been presented. You then go on to refute the new argument that you just made rather than the original one.

Language - Amphiboly

This fallacy occurs when you have ambiguous grammar or syntax. This basically means your sentence can mean two or more things because of a grammatical error. E.g. Let's eat Grandma!

Inductive - Selective evidence

This fallacy occurs when you ignore all the evidence that doesn't support your argument and only mention the evidence that does. E.g. President for re-election: In my term I created 2,000,000 new jobs (but 3,000,000 were lost).

Procedural - Ignoring the argument

This fallacy occurs when you just ignore your opponent's argument. This can happen intentionally or unintentionally, but it's that plain and simple.

Procedural - Winning the argument but losing the arguer

This fallacy occurs when you make an argument but are offensive and unaware of other's feelings and make them not want to listen to you.

Inductive - Slanting the question

This fallacy occurs when you phrase a question in a way that infers the expectation of a specific response. E.g. Should hard working Americans actually have to pay to support people on healthcare? N.B. The polls and the media commit this fallacy a lot.

Language - Slanting

This fallacy occurs when you talk about a certain event or story or narrative, but you don't tell all of the events. You only tell certain things in order to put a certain perspective on the story. The media does this a lot. E.g. Charlie is really annoying, so I wouldn't trust him.

Diversion - Appeal to illegitimate authority

This fallacy occurs when you use an illegitimate authority to support and give evidence in an argument. (N.B. We need to be careful when accepting legitimate authorities. Our modern and postmodern understandings of authority are often flawed.) E.g. My friend, who is the best tennis player, says the world is flat, so it has to be so.

Oversimplification - Black-and-white fallacy

This fallacy says that everything is either black or white. It's either this or that. There is no gray area. "Do you hate Charlie?" "No." "You must love him then!"

Inductive - Hypothesis contrary to fact

This fallacy says that if x (something that didn't happen) had happened, then y (which also didn't happen) would have happened. E.g. If you had eaten a healthier dinner, you would have won the game.

Oversimplification - Special case

This fallacy says that something is true in some special case, so it's always true. E.g. That ambulance was speeding, so it must be okay to speed.

Oversimplification - Dicto simpliciter

This fallacy says that something is true, so it must be true in some special case also. It applies a general principle to a special case without the needed qualification. E.g. Man is rational. Therefore even an idiot can pass a logic course.

Inductive - Post hoc

This fallacy that says because B followed A, A must have caused B. E.g. I had frosted flakes right before the Cubs won the World Series. The frosted flakes must have made them win.

Diversion - Appeal to force

This is an argument that uses force or threats to try and convince someone of something. (N.B. Distinctions are sometimes made between appeal to force and appeal to fear.) E.g. Before you complain, remember who helps you with your homework.

Language - Hyperbole

This is an over exaggerated claim that moves an argument based on emotion rather than reason. It makes someone feel very dramatic. E.g. There were a bajillion people in that store!

Ad hominem - Poisoning the well

This is the direct attack on the trustworthiness of the person making a statement instead of the statement itself. In other words you're poisoning the person's reputation rather than their argument. E.g. How in the world can you believe anything Sammy says?! He drinks root beer out of the microwave!

Language - Equivocation

You commit this fallacy when a term is used in a way that makes it have two or more undecided meanings over the course of an argument. E.g. I wrote in the pen with my pen.

Argumentation - Begging the question

You commit this fallacy when you assume what you're trying to prove or make the conclusion part of a premise. E.g. Mother: I will hear your side of the argument before you are grounded.

Language - Slogans

You commit this fallacy when you look at an advertisement or slogan and use it to back up your beliefs. Advertisements or slogans aren't real arguments. E.g. ""I am a Trump supporter because I saw a sign that said, 'Trump will make America great again.' I want to be great."

Language - Straw man

You commit this fallacy when you reword your opponent's conclusion or even entire argument to make is sound weak, stupid, or ridiculous. You then go on to refute it instead of the original argument. In other words, you set up a "straw man" or scarecrow, which is incredibly easy to knock down, and then knock it down. E.g. You don't think there should be any abortion clinics? Oh! So we should go and bomb them all?