Material Fallacies

Non sequitur

"It does not follow"; the conclusion does not logically follow the premises or reasons or evidence given; every invalid argument is a non sequitur

Post Hoc

"after this, therefore caused by this"; consists of an inference that one thing is the cause of another simply because it was observed first (EX: The rooster believing that his crowing brings up the sun because it rises shortly after his crowing.)

Assuming that Refuting an Argument Refutes Its Conclusion

"all defense and no offense."; just because someone offers a weak argument for a conclusion, their conclusion is not not necessarily false; there will always be bad arguments for true conclusions

Ad hominem

A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute

Accent

Ambiguity of the argument comes from voice inflection, ionic or sarcastic tone, facial expression, or innuendo

Ad Baculum

An appeal to force (fear instead of reason). Correlative to this is the appeal to desire

Ad Misericordiam

An appeal to pity

Ad Populum

An appeal to popularity (bandwagon)

Ad ignominiam

An appeal to shame

Amphiboly

An argument with ambiguous syntax (EX: "Aristotle the walker taught his students walking." Did he teach them how to walk, or did he teach them while walking?")

Hasty Generalization

An inference is made from some specific examples to a general principle (EX: "We went to three baseball game this year, and the home team lost each. They're losers.")

False Analogy

Analogies, while useful, do not prove anything, and the "false analogy" assumes that they do; exists when (1) an analogy without a real resemblance is used, or (2) assuming that because two things are similar in one way, that they will be similar in another

Ad ignorantiam

Appeal to ignorance. Argues that an idea must be true because we we do not know that it is not.

Ad verecundiam

Appeal to reverence/authority (when the appeal is irrelevant, unreliable, unnecessary, dogmatic, or uncritical)

Composition

Argues from the part to the whole, ignoring that what is true of the part isn't always true of the whole. This can be done for either groups or single things (EX: Texas has more millionaires than any other state, therefore Texas is the richest state.)

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact

Argues that if only x were true, which it isn't, then y would be true (EX: If only you had studied harder, you would have passed the test.)

Quoting Out of Context

Argument where the context around what is said is left out; can be done in a literary form (leaving out surrounding text) or a real form (relevant facts of the situation are left out) (EX: The manager is a thief. He told his baserunner to steal whenever he could.)

Complex Question

Asking a question which cannot be answered without begging another question; "damned if you do, damned if you don't." (EX: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Either yes or no, it is implied that you have beaten your wife.)

Begging the Question

Assuming what you set out to prove, smuggling the conclusion back to the premises, usually under different words (EX: "You can't help believing in free will; you're predestined to think that way.")

Poisoning the well

Attack on the trustworthiness of the person making the statement, rather than the statement itself

Black and White

Does not recognize that there are grays between black and white; argues that if it is not one extreme, it must be the opposite extreme (EX: "Do you hate me?" "No." "Oh, you must love me!)

Contradictory Premises

EX: "I will not tolerate intolerance."

Hyperbole

Exaggerates; an "absurd extension" highly exaggerates the other speakers claim (i.e. "You need to clean your room." "So you want me to be your slave?")

Tu Quoque

Fallacies avoid the real argument by making similar charges against the opponent

Stereotyping

Makes no room for exception; stereotypes should not be confused with archetypes ("women are weak" v. "the sea is a woman"); not all generalizations are stereotypes (EX: You're tall; you must play basketball.)

Slogans

Provokes a reaction of agreement or disagreement on the basis of familiarity rather than reason

Selective Evidence

Referring only to the evidence that tends to support your hypothesis and ignoring evidence that refutes it

Refuting an Argument by Refuting Its Conclusion

Refuting a conclusion does not refute an argument; what refutes an argument is an analysis of the argument that finds a false premise, logical fallacy, etc; the original statement is left standing

The genetic fallacy

Refuting an idea based on psychological reasons instead of logical reasons. Involves a confusion of the word "because" (the cause of something vs a reason for a conclusion)

Straw man

Refuting an unfairly weak, stupid, or ridiculous version of your opponents idea instead of the more reasonable idea he actually holds

Dicto Simpliciter

Saying something too simply, absolutely, or unqualifiedly; argues that something is true simply, therefore it is true in some special case (EX: Man is a rational animal. Therefore even an idiot can pass a logic course.)

False Assumption

Similar to begging the question, but is more covert

Division

The reverse of composition; argues from whole to part, ignoring that what is true of the whole is not always true of the part. This can also be done with groups or single things (EX: "Muslims are moving into France. He is a Muslim, therefore he must be moving into France.)

Special Case

The reverse of dicto simpliciter; argues that something is true in some special case, therefore it is true simply (EX: There are a lot of idiots who can't pass a logic course. Therefore man is not rational.)

Equivocation

The same word is used in two or more different senses within an argument; almost any terms, except numbers, have the potential to be used equivocally

Slanting

The use of slanted language tells whether to like or dislike the thing the word describes; instead of proving that the thing is good or bad, the value is assumed by its description (wild, fickle, etc.)

Slanting the Question

Uses words or tones that may lead the person being asked to admit a certain answer (EX: Don't you think people are entitled to basic healthcare.)

Arguing in a Circle

Using a conclusion to justify a premise after having used that premise to justify that conclusion; another form of begging the question

Ignoratio elenchi

Usually called the fallacy of "irrelevant conclusion"; ignorance of the chain of reasoning; giving reasons that prove a different conclusion than the one the argument claims to prove

Argument from Silence

When a speaker or writer is silent about x, we cannot conclude that he doesn't believe in x, or that x does not exist

The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness (Confusing Abstract with Concrete)

both concepts in metaphysics, which are very abstract, and concrete individual things are expressed with nouns, so it is easy to confuse these two types of nouns and treat an abstraction as if it were concrete

Confusing Essence and Existence (Existential Fallacy)

consists of not understanding the distinction of whether something has an essence, or if it actually exists

Ignoring the Argument

gives no refutation; ignoring an opponents argument all together, and when they finish, beginning the topic they wish to discuss, without responding to what was already said

Answering Another Argument than the One Given

giving a refutation of an argument that was not given; "he has slain the enemy, but the wrong enemy

Winning the Argument but Losing the Arguer (or Vice Versa)

ignoring the personal, psychological factor and ending up being distrusted and treated as an enemy by the person you wanted to persuade; more common is the opposite, using tactics of personal appeal to substitute for good reasons

The Fallacy of Accident (Confusing Accidental with Essential)

in the example of "racism, [it] takes an accident of the person (their race) and treats it as essential, as if different races were different species."; this can also be done in reverse

Shifting the Burden of Proof

the burden of proof is on the person who must prove something (EX: a prosecutor questioning a defendant as if they were guilty until proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty)

Confusing the Natural with the Common

the natural is inherent and unchangeable, while the common is accidental and changeable (EX: it is human nature to want property, but it is common, in this age, to want more than we can use)

Confusing Quantity with Quality

the qualification of quantity occurs when it is claimed that numbers have personalities, colors, sounds, moral values, or inherent but inexpressible mystical significance; can be committed in reverse, as people tend to overemphasize what they're good at

Reductionism

uses or implies the phrase "nothing but" to reduce something down to less than it actually is (EX: "Love is nothing but lust" or "The mind is nothing but a brain")

Substituting Explanations for Proofs

when we give proof, we claim to prove that our conclusion must be true; when we give an explanation, we open the mind to the likelihood that x is the explanation for y; this becomes a fallacy when we do not recognize the difference between using proof and using an explanation

Confusing Logical, Physical, and Psychological Causes

while there is nothing wrong with looking at an idea's physical or psychological origins, those are not the tasks of a logician; confusing these three causes is the fallacy