Material Fallacies

Equivocation

The same term is used in two or more senses in the course of an argument.

the black-and-white fallacy

arguing for extremes (not allowing for gradations)

composition

arguing from the part to the whole; ignoring that what can be true of one part is not necessarily true of the whole

division

arguing from the whole to the part; ignoring that what is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the part

special case

arguing that something is true in a special case so it must be true in general

Ad ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance)

arguing that something must be true because we do not know that it is NOT true

Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)

assuming beforehand what you set out to prove

slanting the question

building bias into questions, the answers to which will supposedly serve as evidence for a conclusion

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact (If Only)

claiming to know that non-X is the cause Y. "If only X were true, then Y would be true."

quoting out of context

ignoring the context of a source, either text surrounding a quote or facts surrounding a circumstance

Dicto Simpliciter

ignoring the facts about a special case that requires a general principle to be qualified when applied to it

hasty generalization ("Jumping to Conclusions")

inferring something from specific examples to a general principle without warrant

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ("After it, therefore caused by it")

inferring that one thing is the CAUSE of another simply because the first thing is observed to occur BEFORE the second thing

Ad populum (Appeal to the Masses)

justifying a belief based on popularity

stereotyping

making no room for the exception

shifting the burden of proof

occurs when one party fails to engage with reasons for believing their position, saying, in essence, that the other party must prove their case first

confusing the natural with the common

occurs when reducing the natural to the common AND SUBSTITUTING this as an argument itself.

Straw Man

presenting an unfairly weak, or inaccurate version of your opponent's argument, then "refuting" it rather than the true argument.

ignoring the argument (arguing beside the point)

providing no refutation at all (either of argument or conclusion); rather, ignoring the issue at hand altogether (intentionally or not).

reductionism ("Nothing Buttery")

reducing form to matter AND SUBSTITUTING this as an argument itself

selective evidence

referring only to evidence that supports a hypothesis while ignoring or not addressing evidence that may refute it

Ad hominem (Attacking the Person)

substituting a personal criticism for the argument itself.

Ad verecundiam (Appeal to Reverence)

substituting an appeal to authority as a refutation of an argument

Ad misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)

substituting pity as an argument

Ad baculum (Appeal to Fear)

substituting threats instead of reasoning

Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)

the conclusion does not follow from the reasons provided. (It is an error in content not form.)

False Analogy

this fallacy assumes that analogies PROVE something. They do not, they can only ILLUSTRATE general principles. So, a fallacy occurs when (1) the analogy is not a real resemblance or (2) there is an assumption that when two things are similar in one way they will also be similar in another way

Self-Referentially Contradictory (Self-Refuting)

this fallacy is committed when premises defeat other premises in the argument they are supposed to prove

argument from silence

when a speaker or writer is silent about X, we cannot conclude that he does not believe in X, or that there is no X.

substituting explanations for proofs

when we assume that explaining something amounts to an argument to prove something