Comprehensive Guide to Logical Fallacies
Comprehensive Fallacy Reference
I. Fallacies of Definition and Category
People make these fallacies by manipulating definitions, shifting terms, or making claims based on biased or circular reasoning.
1. Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning
Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premises; using the claim as its own proof.
Formulaic Construction: [X] is true because [X] is true (or because [Y], which assumes [X]).
Example: "Reading is good for you because it’s healthy to read."
Formulaic Counter: “You’re assuming what you’re trying to prove. Can you provide independent evidence for [X]?”
Cunning Counter: “So your proof for [X] is just [X] in disguise? That’s like saying ‘I’m right because I say so.’ Try again with actual evidence.”
2. No True Scotsman Fallacy
Definition: Arbitrarily redefining terms to exclude counterexamples and protect a generalization.
Formulaic Construction: No [true X] would ever [do Y]. “That’s not a true [X].”
Example: "No true gamer would play on easy mode."
Formulaic Counter: “You’re redefining [group] to exclude counterexamples. What objective criteria are you using?”
Cunning Counter: “Convenient-any counterexample just ‘doesn’t count’? If you keep changing the rules, your claim can never be wrong, which makes it meaningless.”
3. Definist Fallacy
Definition: Defining a term in a biased or question-begging way to support an argument.
Formulaic Construction: [X] is [Y] because I define [X] as [Y].
Example: "Justice means giving people what they deserve, so the death penalty is just."
Formulaic Counter: “You’re defining [X] in a way that guarantees your conclusion. Can we use a neutral, accepted definition?”
Cunning Counter: “Redefining [X] on the fly doesn’t make your argument stronger—it just shows you can’t win on neutral ground. Let’s stick to standard definitions.”
4. Naturalistic Fallacy
Definition: Arguing that what is natural is inherently good or right.
Formulaic Construction: [X] is natural, therefore [X] is good/right.
Example: "Herbal remedies are natural, so they must be safe."
Formulaic Counter: “Just because [X] is natural doesn’t mean it’s good. Can you show why it’s good, not just natural?”
Cunning Counter: “Nature gave us poison ivy and hurricanes too—should we call those good? ‘Natural’ isn’t a free pass for ‘beneficial.’”
5. Moralistic Fallacy
Definition: Assuming that what ought to be must therefore be so, or vice versa.
Formulaic Construction: [X] ought to be, therefore [X] is (or vice versa).
Example: "People shouldn’t be violent, so violence doesn’t exist in our community."
Formulaic Counter: “Wishing [X] were true doesn’t make it so. What evidence shows that [X] actually is the case?”
Cunning Counter: “Wishing something away doesn’t erase reality. If you want to change the facts, you’ll need more than wishful thinking.”
II. Fallacies of Causal Reasoning
People make these fallacies by misunderstanding or misrepresenting cause and effect, or by connecting unrelated events.
6. Wrong Direction
Definition: Confusing cause and effect, reversing the actual direction of causation.
Formulaic Construction: [X] causes [Y], but actually [Y] causes [X].
Example: "People are poor because they’re lazy," when poverty may cause lack of motivation.
Formulaic Counter: “Are you sure [X] causes [Y]? Could it be the other way around, or is there evidence for the direction of causality?”
Cunning Counter: “You’re flipping cause and effect. That’s like saying umbrellas cause rain. Can you prove the direction, or is this just guesswork?”
7. Common Cause
Definition: Assuming a direct causal link between two events when both may be caused by a third factor.
Formulaic Construction: [X] and [Y] happen together, so [X] causes [Y] (ignoring [Z] as the real cause).
Example: "Ice cream sales cause sunburns," ignoring that hot weather causes both.
Formulaic Counter: “Could both [X] and [Y] be caused by something else? What about [Z] as a common factor?”
Cunning Counter: “You’re ignoring the obvious third factor. Correlation isn’t causation—unless you want to argue that ice cream causes sunburns?”
8. Appeal to Consequence / Slippery Slope
Definition: Arguing that a proposition is true or false based on (often exaggerated) consequences, rather than evidence.
Formulaic Construction: If [X] happens, then [bad/good consequence] will happen. Therefore, [X] is false/true.
Example: "If we allow students to redo tests, soon no one will study."
Formulaic Counter: “Whether [X] leads to [bad/good outcome] doesn’t affect whether [X] is true. Can we focus on the evidence for [X] itself?”
Cunning Counter: “Whether you like the outcome or not doesn’t change reality. Are we debating facts or just your fears?”
9. Retrospect Determinism
Definition: Assuming that because something happened, it was inevitable.
Formulaic Construction: [X] happened, so it must have been inevitable.
Example: "He became a billionaire, so it was always meant to be."
Formulaic Counter: “Just because [X] happened doesn’t mean it was inevitable. What evidence shows it couldn’t have gone differently?”
Cunning Counter: “Hindsight is 20/20. If it was so obvious, why didn’t anyone act on it at the time?”
10. Historian’s Fallacy
Definition: Judging past decisions with the benefit of hindsight, ignoring the context of the time.
Formulaic Construction: People in the past should have known [X], because we know it now.
Example: "They should have seen the financial crisis coming."
Formulaic Counter: “Are you judging past decisions with information only available now? What did people actually know at the time?”
Cunning Counter: “You’re acting like everyone had a crystal ball. Let’s judge decisions by what people actually knew, not by what we know now.”
III. Fallacies of Evidence, Ignorance, and Falsifiability
People make these fallacies by relying on lack of evidence, anecdotal stories, or arguments that cannot be proven or disproven.
11. Argument from Ignorance / Unfalsifiability / Proving Non-Existence
Definition: Asserting a claim is true because it hasn't been proven false, or vice versa; relying on the impossibility of disproof as evidence.
Formulaic Construction: There’s no evidence that [X] is false, so [X] is true (or vice versa).
Example: "No one has proven aliens don’t exist, so they must exist."
Formulaic Counter: “A lack of evidence isn’t evidence of absence (or presence). Can you provide positive evidence for [X]?”
Cunning Counter: “So, because we can’t disprove [X], you get to claim it’s true? That’s not proof—that’s just exploiting a gap in knowledge.”
12. Argument from Anecdote
Definition: Using personal stories or isolated examples as sufficient evidence.
Formulaic Construction: [X] happened to me/s omeone I know, so [X] is generally true.
Example: "I know someone who smoked and lived to 100, so smoking isn’t bad."
Formulaic Counter: “One example doesn’t prove the rule. Do you have broader evidence or data to support [X]?”
Cunning Counter: “One story isn’t a trend. If anecdotes were proof, we’d all believe in Bigfoot by now.”
13. Argument from Incredulity / Stone
Definition: Dismissing a claim because it seems unbelievable or difficult to imagine.
Formulaic Construction: I can’t believe [X], so [X] must be false.
Example: "I can’t imagine how evolution works, so it must be wrong."
Formulaic Counter: “Just because something is hard to believe doesn’t make it false. Can you show it’s impossible, not just unlikely?”
Cunning Counter: “Just because you can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Reality isn’t limited by your imagination.”
14. Argument from Moderation
Definition: Assuming the truth is always a compromise between two extremes.
Formulaic Construction: The truth must be somewhere between [X] and [Y].
Example: "One side says the project will take a year, the other says a week, so it must take six months."
Formulaic Counter: “The truth isn’t always in the middle. Why should we assume compromise is correct in this case?”
Cunning Counter: “Splitting the difference doesn’t magically make things true. Sometimes one side is just wrong—care to show which?”
15. Fake Precision
Definition: Using unwarranted or misleadingly precise statistics or data.
Formulaic Construction: [X] is true because the data says [overly precise statistic].
Example: "This product will improve your memory by exactly 37.2%."
Formulaic Counter: “That number seems overly specific. What’s your source, and how reliable is that level of precision?”
Cunning Counter: “That number is suspiciously exact. Are you hoping big numbers will distract from weak evidence?”
16. Probability vs Plausibility
Definition: Confusing what is likely with what is merely possible.
Formulaic Construction: [X] is possible, so [X] is likely.
Example: "It’s possible to win the lottery, so I’ll probably win if I play."
Formulaic Counter: “Just because [X] is possible doesn’t mean it’s probable. What are the actual odds?”
Cunning Counter: “Possible isn’t probable. It’s possible I’ll win the lottery, but I wouldn’t bet my argument on it.”
IV. Fallacies of Generalization
People make these fallacies by drawing broad conclusions from insufficient, unrepresentative, or misapplied evidence.
17. Accident (By Accident) Fallacy
Definition: Applying a general rule to a specific case where it does not fit.
Formulaic Construction: [General rule] applies to [specific case], even when it doesn’t fit.
Example: "Freedom of speech means you can say anything, even threats."
Formulaic Counter: “Does the general rule really apply here, or is this case an exception?”
Cunning Counter: “You’re forcing a rule where it doesn’t fit. Exceptions exist for a reason—care to address them?”
18. Hasty Generalization
Definition: Drawing a broad conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample.
Formulaic Construction: [Small sample] did [X], so all [group] do [X].
Example: "Two teenagers were rude, so all teenagers are rude."
Formulaic Counter: “Is your sample size big enough to support that conclusion? What about counterexamples?”
Cunning Counter: “A couple of examples don’t make a rule. Are you building your case on anecdotes or actual data?”
19. Composition
Definition: Assuming what is true of the parts must be true of the whole.
Formulaic Construction: [Part of X] has [Y], so [whole X] has [Y].
Example: "Each player on the team is a star, so the team must be the best."
Formulaic Counter: “Just because each part has [X] doesn’t mean the whole does. Can you prove the whole shares the part’s property?”
Cunning Counter: “Just because every brick is small doesn’t mean the building is. Can you prove the whole shares the part’s property?”
20. Division
Definition: Assuming what is true of the whole must be true of its parts.
Formulaic Construction: [Whole X] has [Y], so [part of X] has [Y].
Example: "The team is the best, so every player must be the best."
Formulaic Counter: “Just because the group has [X] doesn’t mean each member does. Can you show it applies to individuals?”
Cunning Counter: “You’re assuming the group’s trait applies to every individual. That’s like saying every player on a winning team is a champion.”
21. Base Rate Fallacy
Definition: Ignoring general statistical information (base rates) in favor of specific information.
Formulaic Construction: Ignoring [general probability] in favor of [specific information].
Example: "He tested positive for a rare disease, so he must have it," ignoring the rarity.
Formulaic Counter: “Are you ignoring the general likelihood of [X]? What do the base rates say?”
Cunning Counter: “Ignoring the big picture for a flashy detail? Let’s look at the actual odds, not just the exceptions.”
22. Conjunction Fallacy
Definition: Assuming that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one.
Formulaic Construction: [Specific scenario] is more likely than [general scenario].
Example: "Linda is a bank teller and a feminist is more likely than Linda is a bank teller."
Formulaic Counter: “Is it really more likely for both [X] and [Y] to be true than just [X] alone?”
Cunning Counter: “You’re betting on two things happening instead of one. That’s not logic—that’s wishful thinking.”
V. Fallacies of Relevance and Distraction
People make these fallacies by diverting attention, attacking opponents, or shifting the focus away from the actual argument.
23. Moving Goal Post
Definition: Changing the criteria for proof after they have been met.
Formulaic Construction: When [X] is proven, demand [new evidence] for [X].
Example: "You showed the data, but now I want expert testimony."
Formulaic Counter: “You’re changing the criteria after they’ve been met. What would actually satisfy your standard?”
Cunning Counter: “Funny how the target keeps moving. Is there any evidence that would ever satisfy you, or are you just playing keep-away?”
24. Poisoning the Well
Definition: Discrediting an opponent in advance to bias the audience against their argument.
Formulaic Construction: Before [X] speaks, say something negative about [X] to discredit them.
Example: "Before you listen to her, remember she’s been wrong before."
Formulaic Counter: “Attacking the source doesn’t address the argument. Can we focus on the evidence?”
Cunning Counter: “Attacking me before I speak doesn’t make my argument weaker—it just shows you’re afraid of what I’ll say.”
25. Appeal to Motive
Definition: Attacking the motives of the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
Formulaic Construction: [X] only says [Y] because of [motive].
Example: "You just want higher taxes because you work for the government."
Formulaic Counter: “Even if [X] has a motive, does that affect whether their argument is valid?”
Cunning Counter: “Even if I had an agenda, the facts don’t care. Can you address my argument, not my intentions?”
26. Guilt by Association
Definition: Discrediting an argument based on the people or groups associated with it.
Formulaic Construction: [X] is associated with [bad group], so [X] is bad.
Example: "You support that policy? So did that corrupt politician."
Formulaic Counter: “Just because [X] is associated with [Y] doesn’t make [X] wrong. What’s the argument against [X] itself?”
Cunning Counter: “If you can’t attack my argument, you attack my company? That’s not logic—it’s desperation.”
27. Whataboutism / Compartmentalization
Definition: Responding to criticism by making counter-accusations or pointing to others’ faults, rather than addressing the issue.
Formulaic Construction: But what about [Y]? (deflect from [X])
Example: "You criticize our pollution, but what about your country’s emissions?"
Formulaic Counter: “Let’s address [X] on its own merits instead of deflecting to [Y].”
Cunning Counter: “Changing the subject won’t make this issue go away. Let’s deal with [X] before jumping to [Y].”
28. Two Wrongs Make a Right
Definition: Justifying a wrong action because someone else has done something wrong.
Formulaic Construction: [X] did [bad thing], so it’s okay for me to do [bad thing].
Example: "They cheated, so we can cheat too."
Formulaic Counter: “Someone else’s wrongdoing doesn’t justify ours. Why not address the issue directly?”
Cunning Counter: “So you’re justifying bad behavior by pointing to someone else’s? That’s not a defense—it’s an admission.”
29. Cherry Picking / Confirmation Bias
Definition: Selecting only evidence that supports your argument while ignoring contrary evidence.
Formulaic Construction: Only mention [supporting evidence], ignore [contradictory evidence].
Example: "Look at these three studies that support my claim," ignoring the ten that don’t.
Formulaic Counter: “Are you considering all the evidence, or just what supports your view?”
Cunning Counter: “Selective evidence is just self-deception. Let’s look at all the data, not just your favorites.”
VI. Fallacies of False Alternatives and Oversimplification
People make these fallacies by reducing complex issues to overly simple choices or misrepresenting arguments to make them easier to attack.
30. False Dichotomy
Definition: Presenting only two options when more exist, forcing a choice between extremes.
Formulaic Construction: Either [X] or [Y], with no other options.
Example: "You’re either with us or against us."
Formulaic Counter: “Are those really the only two options? What about [third option]?”
Cunning Counter: “You’re pretending there are only two options. Reality is rarely that simple—what about [other possibility]?”
31. Oversimplification Strawman
Definition: Misrepresenting an argument by oversimplifying it.
Formulaic Construction: [Opponent’s argument] is reduced to a simple version, then attacked.
Example: "You want to save the environment, so you must want to ban all cars."
Formulaic Counter: “You’re dumbing down my argument to make it easier to attack. Care to take on what I actually said?”
Cunning Counter: “You’re misrepresenting my position. Let’s debate my real argument, not your cartoon version.”
32. Distortion Strawman
Definition: Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Formulaic Construction: Misrepresent [opponent’s argument] to make it easier to attack.
Example: "He wants better healthcare, so he wants socialism."
Formulaic Counter: “You’re misrepresenting my position. Let me clarify what I mean.”
Cunning Counter: “That’s not my position, and you know it. Let’s debate my real argument, not your cartoon version.”
33. Overextension Strawman
Definition: Extending an opponent’s argument to an extreme in order to refute it.
Formulaic Construction: Exaggerate [opponent’s argument] to an extreme.
Example: "You support background checks? Next, you’ll want to ban all guns."
Formulaic Counter: “That’s an extreme version of my argument, not what I’m claiming.”
Cunning Counter: “Stretching my point to the absurd doesn’t refute it. Try countering what I actually claim.”
VII. Appeals to Authority, Popularity, and Emotion
People make these fallacies by relying on status, popularity, or emotional manipulation rather than logic or evidence.
34. Appeal to Authority (celebrities, anonymous, blind)
Definition: Using the opinion of an authority figure (often irrelevant or unqualified) as evidence.
Formulaic Construction: [Authority figure] says [X], so [X] is true.
Example: "A famous actor uses this product, so it must work."
Formulaic Counter: “Does this authority have relevant expertise? Can we look at the actual evidence?”
Cunning Counter: “Famous doesn’t mean expert. If your case is strong, you shouldn’t need to hide behind a celebrity.”
35. Appeal to People (Bandwagon, Vanity, Snobbery)
Definition: Arguing something is true or good because it is popular or associated with admired people.
Formulaic Construction: Everyone/[elite group] does [X], so [X] is good/right.
Example: "All the cool kids are wearing these shoes."
Formulaic Counter: “Popularity doesn’t equal truth. Why is [X] actually correct?”
Cunning Counter: “If popularity made things true, we’d still believe the earth is flat. Let’s stick to reason, not trends.”
36. Appeal to Emotion (Fear, Shame, Pity)
Definition: Manipulating emotions rather than presenting logical arguments.
Formula ic Construction: [Emotion] is used instead of evidence for [X].
Example: "Think of the children! We must pass this law."
Formulaic Counter: “Emotions aside, what are the facts or logic behind [X]?”
Cunning Counter: “Tugging at heartstrings isn’t proof. Can you offer logic instead of just feelings?”
37. Appeal to Common Belief / Group Identity
Definition: Claiming something is true or right because it is a common belief or shared by a group.
Formulaic Construction: Most people believe [X], so [X] is true.
Example: "Everyone knows this diet works."
Formulaic Counter: “Just because many believe [X] doesn’t make it true. What’s the evidence?”
Cunning Counter: “Consensus isn’t evidence. The crowd has been wrong before—what makes this time different?”
38. Appeal to Normality
Definition: Assuming something is good or correct because it is normal or typical.
Formulaic Construction: [X] is normal/common, so [X] is good/right.
Example: "Everyone drives to work, so it must be the best way."
Formulaic Counter: “Normal isn’t always right. Is there a good reason for [X] beyond its popularity?”
Cunning Counter: “Normal doesn’t mean optimal. If we never questioned ‘normal,’ we’d never progress.”
VIII. Other / Miscellaneous
People make these fallacies by attributing outcomes to luck, or by confusing identity and logical relationships.
39. Just Lucky Fallacy
Definition: Attributing outcomes to luck rather than evidence or skill.
Formulaic Construction: [X] succeeded because of luck, not skill or evidence.
Example: "He only won the game because he’s lucky."
Formulaic Counter: “Was it really just luck, or is there evidence of skill or causality?”
Cunning Counter: “Luck is a lazy explanation. Where’s your evidence that skill or planning played no part?”
40. Masked Man Fallacy
Definition: Confusing identity in logical reasoning (if someone doesn’t know X is Y, then X ≠ Y).
Formulaic Construction: [I don’t know X is Y], so [X ≠ Y].
Example: "I know who Clark Kent is, but I don’t know who Superman is. So Clark Kent isn’t Superman."
Formulaic Counter: “Not knowing two things are the same doesn’t mean they aren’t. What evidence shows they’re different?”
Cunning Counter: “Not recognizing two things doesn’t mean they’re different. Can you show they aren’t the same, or is this just confusion?”
How to Use This Reference
- Spot a fallacy: Identify the definition and formulaic construction.
- Respond: Use the formulaic counter for a logical rebuttal.
- Dominate: Deploy the cunning counter to expose the flaw and put your opponent on the defensive.
Comments
Post a Comment