Logical Fallacies:
Fallacies can be defined as types of bad arguments, or as arguments that often seem plausible but are based on bad reasoning. Fallacy originates from the latin word fallacia, meaning deceit. Knowledge of fallacies makes it easier to systematize our thoughts, so that we can think more rationally and become better at pointing out when we are met with irrelevant claims and oversimplifications, or arguments that confuse more than they inform. Here are some of the most prevalent fallacies:
1) Ad Hominem (Latin for "To the man")
When you resort to name calling and attack a persons character or background rather than the content of their argument.
Example:
You are being hysterical.
Elaboration:
This is how men have historically ensured that men do not need to listen to women, no matter the validity of their argument.
2) Tu Quoque (Latin for "you to". Quo is pronounced as in quota and Que as in quiz)
When we defend a position by arguing that other people do the same.
Example:
Spouse 1: There is too much pepper on the food.
Spouse 2: But you also put too much salt in the food when you cook.
Elaboration:
Tu Quoque is the standard example of childish behaviour. When you reprimand children they will sometimes defend themselves by saying that their classmates did it too. In the US they began to speak of whataboutism, because whenever former President Trump said something bad his supporters would respond with: “what about Hillary”. The really dangerous version of Tu Quoque is when we not only say, "they did it too", but "they would have done it if we did not do it first". This can lead to genocide.
3) Appeal to tradition (Latin: Ad Antiquitatem)
"This is how we have always done it", way of thinking.
Example:
It is wrong to no longer say the Pledge of Allegiance at school because that is what we have always done.
Elaboration:
Traditions gives structure to society and are therefore often valuable, so long as we can argue in favor of the specific tradition. That something has been the norm for centuries does not in itself justify it. In that case slave trade would still be legal in America. Most of human history however has been based on this fallacy. It was only with the rise of philosophy in ancient Greece that we began to expect arguments from reason and sense perception and move away from passed on mythological stories about how the world works.
4) Appeal to force (Argumentum Ad Baculum. Latin for "Argument to the stick")
'Might is right', way of thinking.
Example:
The super superintendent interrupted and yelled out: "Nonsense, we have no other choice but to knock some sense into the kids. Abolishing corporal punishment will lead to classroom anarchy". Since he would not stop talking no one else could get a word in.
Elaboration:
Before the introduction of democracy to ancient Greece, society was based on traditional stories as well as 'might is right'. The appeal to force still appeals to people who are more concerned with imposing their views on others, rather than to engage in constructive dialogue. The truth however is not concerned with whoever shouts the loudest, and two plus two is not five no matter how much people threaten each other into believing so.
5) False authority (Ad Verecundiam. Latin for "know your place")
When someone speaks authoritatively about a subject they do not have specific qualifications to speak about, and yet people listen as if they do.
Example:
Global warming is the most important challenge of our time. Even Hollywood stars like Leonardo DiCaprio are active in the fight for our planet.
Elaboration:
It is probably true that global warming is the most important challenge of our time however, DiCaprio is an actor and not an authority on climate science. However well intended, his fight for the climate is not an argument in itself for supporting the fight against manmade climate change. However, the scientific evidence he presents is.
6) Appeal to popularity (Latin: Argumentum ad populum)
When we jump the bandwagon and believe something because other people believe it.
Example:
At the bookstore it said, "sold in two million copies", so Peter bought it thinking it would be good.
Elaboration:
Philosopher Emmanuel Kant suggested that the motto of the enlightenment was Sapere aude, meaning 'dare to know' in Latin. If it made sense to worry too much about what the majority believes, rather than to focus on the content of their arguments, we would still believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. As a guest at one of my presentations noted, it is not certain that the two million people who bought the book in the example above, actually read it.
7) Appeal to emotion (Latin: Argumentum ad passiones)
Example:
Sad violin music in a commercial for a charitable organisation.
Elaboration:
Two plus two is not five no matter if we say it with passion or not. Speaking to our emotions can motivate us to act and to support a good cause. However there is no guarantee that we will be motivated in the right direction. History is full of examples of the masses being motivated to unspeakable cruelty because they were too easily swayed by the appeal to emotion.
8) Ambivalence
When we use the ambivalence of language to confuse and deceive.
Example:
A local tabloid had a picture of a famous race car driver and with big letters it said "Fired!", but when I clicked on the article it turned out it was just his mechanic that had got laid off.
Elaboration:
Clickbait, such as in the example given, sometimes consists of ambivalent headlines designed to deceive us. Ambivalent communication however is not always bad. Take for instance the dialogue in the British movie Brassed Off (1996) where a woman has been escorted home by a man after a date. Upon leaving the taxi she turns around and asks:
"Do you want to come up for coffee?"
"I don't drink coffee", he says
"It's okay, I don't have any", she says suggestively.
Thus, context is key when determining if we are being met by someone who is more concerned with appearing to be wise rather than being wise.
9) Circular argumentation (Circulus in probando. Latin for circle in proving)
When we are begging the question by proving something using certain premises but include the conclusion in those premises.
Example:
This fire alarm is the best on the market because we have decided to only sell the best fire alarms to our costumers.
Elaboration:
The conclusion is that the fire alarm is the best, but how do we get to this conclusion? By accepting the premise that it is the best fire alarm they sell. In this way the conclusion is part of the premise. Circular arguments are often amongst the hardest to spot. Especially if we say a lot of irrelevant things before closing the circle. People who take a long time to explain a simple matter can be suspected of using circular arguments in their attempt at hiding the the fact that they are essentially just letting out hot air.
10) Intimidation (Argumentum verbosum. Latin for verbal argument)
When it's all show and no substance.
Example:
The presenter must be very smart because I cannot keep up with his technical jargon and complicated language.
Elaboration:
Einstein purportedly said that, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.” As a rule of thump this is probably true, and technical language, beautiful slides and an impressive CV must be followed up by good arguments that people can understand. Otherwise the best we can hope is to intimidate them into agreeing with us.
11) Straw man argument (From English, and originally from the category ignoratio elenchi, which is latin for ignorance of the refutation)
When we attack a caricatured version of the original argument, like when soldiers train for battle by fighting a straw man representing the enemy.
Example:
Penny: I think we should have a city toll around the city centre.Kurt: It's crazy that you want to ban the cars from entering the city centre. That's really bad for business.
Elaboration:
Penny has not said she wants to ban all cars from the city centre, so Kurt attacks a caricatured version of her argument, or a straw man that is easier to defeat. Politicians in particular have a habit of attacking each other with straw men arguments, but straw men are everywhere amongst us. Sometimes exaggeration does indeed enhance understanding, so it is advisable to think for yourself.
12) Red herring (From English. Like the straw man originally from the category ignoratio elenchi, which is latin for ignorance of the refutation)
When you instead of attack someones actual argument, you put words in their mouth and attack them for something they have not even stated an opinion about, similar to if you throw a red herring after the fox hunting hounds so as to divert them from chasing rabbits.
Penny: I think we should build a city toll around midtown.
Kurt: I think that's a really bad idea. How can you not care about the people who has to go to work everyday.
Elaboration:
Kurt does not attack a distorted version of the original argument, but an argument that Penny has not made at all. She did not say she did not care about people who live outside of midtown. Perhaps she herself or her family lives outside of midtown, and she just wants the city centre to be more pleasent for all.
In both the straw man and the red herring fallacy we put words in people's mouth by respectively exaggerating what they said in the case of the straw man and sidetrack the discussion in the case of the red herring.
13) Cherry picking
When we choose what information to share or to build on in order to avoid being proven wrong, like when we pick only the cherries that are ripe.
Example:
The players in one team thought they should have been awarded a penalty. The other team funnily enough saw it quite differently.
When philosopher and nobel laureate Bertrand Russel was asked what he would say to people a hundred years from now, he asked them to remember to look for the truth rather than what they wish to be true. The example from the world of football shows how very relevant it is that we remind each other of Russels simple message, so that we can avoid cherry picking.
14) Moving the goal posts - and its sub category No True Scotsman
When you try to win an argument by changing the parameters for when you are right, similar as to how you might move the goal posts in order for it to be easier to hit the target.
Example:
The Christian Church: The Bible is true and must be taken literally.
Charles Darwin: We originate from Abes.
Ratified claim: The Bible is still true but it must be understood figuratively.
Elaboration:
When Nietzsche said "God is dead" he worried what might replace religion, so perhaps it made sense to move the goal posts so as to water down religion without dismantling it altogether all at once when Darwin proved the Bible wrong. Generally speaking however a rational argument is an argument that is open to the possibility that it can be challenged by new facts. It must be falsifiable as philosopher of Science Karl Popper called it. Otherwise anyone can say anything and move the goal posts to fit their narrative every time someone pokes holes in their argument.
A sub category of moving the goal posts is the no true Scotsman fallacy. It has its name from the story of a sex offender on the loose in Scotland. People did not believe that a Scotsman could have done it, and when the perpetrator was caught and it turned out to be a Scotsman, it was claimed that he was not a true Scotsman.
15) False equivalence (Latin: Non causa pro cause, meaning not the cause for the cause)
When you compare two things that are not comparable.
Example:
Eating meat is murder.
Elaboration:
It can be debated whether it is ethical to eat meat, but calling it murder implies that there is no difference between history's worst mass murderers and regular people shopping for groceries. Lumping everything together like this renders further discussion impossible, and in general we can strengthen our thinking by asking ourselves if our way of thinking makes possible actual conversation between people or not. If there is no one there to listen, there is not much to gain from being smart.
16) False causality (Post Hoc, or post hoc ergo promptor hoc. Latin for after this, therefore because of this)
When we assume that there is a connection between two phenomena just because they follow after each other.
Example:
The quack gave me a potion and now two weeks later my cold is gone, so it must have worked.
Elaboration:
The cold would have probably passed anyway no matter what, so even if the two phenomena are connected in time, this does not mean that one is necessarily the cause of the other. The fallacy is not amongst the most complicated, but many commit it and have difficulty seeing it for what it is because they indulge in wishful thinking and stray too far away from scientific thinking.
17) Hasty generalisation (Latin: Dicto Simpliciter, meaning maxim/universal rule without qualification)
Example:
Muslims support terrorism.
Elaboration:
We have to categorize the phenomena of life in such a way that it does not appear completely chaotic and and complex. Therefore we cannot avoid generalizing, but we must do so thoughtfully. If we find ourselves in a grey area we can as a rule of thumb seek guidance in the golden rule of ethics: Do unto others what you which that they should do to you.
18) Fallacy fallacy (Argumentum ad logicam: Latin for argument to logic)
When we assume that the conclusion is wrong because the argument is partially or entirely wrong.
Example:
It is murder to eat meat, said Lisa emphatically. Penny dismissed her claim with reference to the fact that she committed a false equivalence fallacy by comparing meat eating to murder.
Elaboration:
While true that Lisa commits a false equivalence it is not in itself a reason to dismiss her conclusion, because she could be right but for the wrong reasons.
Generally what is most important is not first and foremost if we are right or wrong, but whether or not our claim is based on reasonable arguments. A broken clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes, but that does not make it a reliable source of information.
19) False dilemma (Also called black or white fallacy or false dichotomy. In Greek the word Dichotomi means to divide into two).
Either/or thinking, where we see things black or white.
Example:
If you love our country you will support our military operation.
Elaboration:
Americans who were against the invasion of Iraq, was seen by many as unpatriotic, until it turned out that the war was based on misinformation, and the historical narrative became more blurry. Democracy is in a sense a false dilemma. Just because you vote for a certain political party, it does not necessarily mean you support everything they say. When we forget this in our meeting with one another we commit a false dilemma fallacy.
A good self-help tip is to see if we are stuck in a false dilemma by asking ourselves if there is a third option, or a middle ground we can take.
20) Appeal to the stone (Latin: Argumentum ad lapidem)
A claim that is stated as fact without being supported by argument.
Example:
You are not making any sense. In fact it is clear that you have not understood this subject at all.
Elaboration:
The philosopher George
Berkley imagined that the outer world only exists in our mind. Author Samuel Jackson did not agree with this and kicked a stone saying, "I refute it thus!". Since it might as well have hurt to kick a stone in Berkley's imagined world, Jackson had not actually made an argument but simply refuted the claim. The internet is filled with appeals to the stone, because it can be such a hassle to have to support our views with argument. However, if we claim someone is stupid without justifying why that is, we are the ones acting stupid ourselves. That the appeal to the stone is rarely pointed out on social media speaks volumes of how much we can improve public discourse and think better in our daily lifes, if we make a better effort to point out fallacies in each others arguments, and in our own thought processes as well.
Credit:
This material, including most of the examples, is developed by Henrik Schøneberg (schoeneberg) and updated on March 29, 2023. Feel free to use it commercially or however you see fit with or without crediting the author.
