ONE OF SEVEN WAYS OF SEEING
Spot the gaps between a persuasive argument and a sound one.
Abusive ad hominem uses insults or derogatory labels in place of relevant support for rejecting a person’s argument. The question is whether the attack addresses the claim or merely distracts from it.
The fallacy of accent occurs when an argument uses a statement under one emphasis or context, then draws a conclusion that depends on a different reading. Vocal stress, punctuation or omitted context can enable the shift. An ambiguous sentence alone is not yet a fallacious argument.
The fallacy of accident occurs when a general rule that is usually true is applied to a specific case where it does not apply, often due to irrelevant or accidental factors.
The accident fallacy occurs when a general rule is applied to all situations without considering legitimate exceptions, often to preserve simplicity at the cost of rationality.
Attacking the person's self-confidence in place of the argument or the evidence. This fallacy undermines the opponent's certainty to avoid addressing the actual reasoning.
Ad Hoc Rescue is a logical fallacy where one protects a belief by inventing excuses without evidence, despite contrary evidence.
The ad hominem fallacy occurs when an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.
Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself, when the attack is irrelevant to the argument.
The circumstantial ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks an arguer's personal inconsistency to dismiss their argument, but whether it is fallacious depends on whether the attack aims to refute the argument or merely question the arguer's credibility. The fallacy is committed only if the attack is taken to refute the argument itself, not if it merely raises doubts about the arguer's character or credibility until further evidence is provided.
A direct ad hominem fallacy uses an irrelevant personal attack to dismiss an argument. The key question is whether the criticism bears on the evidence or reasoning at issue.
A logical fallacy where a person or argument is discredited based on a perceived negative association with another person or group, rather than on the merits of the argument itself.
A fallacy where an arguer's vested interest or bias is used to dismiss their argument, without demonstrating that the bias actually undermines the reasoning or evidence presented.
Attacking an argument by pointing out the arguer's bias or vested interest, which may undermine credibility but does not automatically refute the argument.
The ad hominem circumstantial fallacy attempts to discredit an argument by implying that the arguer has impure or selfish motives, rather than addressing the argument itself.
A logical fallacy where an argument is rejected based on the character or circumstances of the person making it, rather than the argument itself. The fallacy occurs when attacking the person is irrelevant to the truth of their claims.
An ad hominem bias argument questions someone’s credibility by pointing to their interests or partiality. That may be relevant to how much weight to give their testimony. It becomes fallacious when the alleged bias is unsupported or irrelevant, or is treated as sufficient to refute their claim.
A logical fallacy where an argument is attacked by discrediting the character of the person making it, rather than addressing the argument itself. Distinguishing fallacious from legitimate uses is crucial because ad hominem arguments can be powerful and hard to counter.
Ad hominem: tu quoque is a subtype of ad hominem fallacy where a person counters an ad hominem attack by accusing the attacker of the same fault, involving both parties' characters and potentially being either fallacious or legitimate depending on context.
A formal fallacy in categorical syllogisms where the conclusion is affirmative but at least one premise is negative; valid syllogisms require a negative conclusion when a negative premise is present.
The fallacy of affirming a disjunct occurs when one mistakenly assumes an inclusive 'or' (where both options can be true) is an exclusive 'or' (where only one can be true), leading to the invalid conclusion that if one disjunct is true, the other must be false.
Affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy where an argument incorrectly assumes that if the consequent of a conditional statement is true, then the antecedent must also be true. This invalid reasoning confuses a necessary condition with a sufficient one.
A logical fallacy where the converse of a true conditional statement is assumed to be true. Just because 'If A, then B' is true does not logically justify 'If B, then A'.
This concept explains the logical fallacy of making sweeping generalizations, such as 'all mathematicians are awkward', which can lead to stereotyping and are easily refuted by counter-examples. It highlights the danger of ignoring exceptions and the importance of precision over pedantry.
The all-or-none fallacy is the tendency to think in binary terms, misinterpreting probabilistic statements as absolute. It also involves confusing necessary conditions with sufficient causes, and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
The all or nothing fallacy presents total acceptance and total rejection as the only choices when partial options are available. A common example is dismissing a policy because it cannot solve the entire problem. The relevant question is whether it can achieve enough to justify its costs.
Asserting a conclusion without evidence or premises, through a statement that makes the conclusion appear certain, when in fact, it is not.
This fallacy occurs when one assumes that not more than 50% of individuals can be above average, ignoring the distinction between mean and median in skewed distributions.
When presented with just two choices that are essentially the same, worded differently, often used in sales to create a lose-lose situation.
Exploiting linguistic ambiguity to mislead or misrepresent, often by shifting between different meanings of a word or phrase.
When an unclear phrase or word with multiple definitions is used in an argument, shifting meaning between premises and conclusion, the argument becomes unsupported. This fallacy relies on linguistic ambiguity to mislead.
Amphiboly occurs when an argument relies on a sentence with more than one grammatical reading and shifts between those readings. Such ambiguity can produce jokes, but it can also lead to mistaken inferences in contracts, instructions, and political speech.
Ancient-astronaut claims attribute early human achievements to extraterrestrial visitors without adequate evidence. Harrison argues that this often rests on underestimating ancient people’s abilities and overlooking the development of their engineering and culture.
Anecdotal evidence relies on isolated personal stories or atypical examples to support a claim, disregarding the need for representative, systematic evidence. It is compelling because unusual cases are memorable, but this can lead to flawed reasoning in decision-making.
The anecdotal fallacy is drawing a broader conclusion than an isolated experience supports, especially when that experience is used to dismiss stronger evidence. A vivid success can distract from failures, base rates, or other explanations.
An appeal to anonymous authority treats an unspecified source as sufficient support for a claim. Without an identifiable source or independently assessable evidence, the appeal cannot establish the claim’s credibility.
Anthropomorphism attributes human traits to nonhuman beings or things. It becomes a reasoning error when a literal conclusion relies on an unsupported attribution, rather than on evidence about the subject.
A logical fallacy where arguments are judged based on the accomplishments or success of the person making them, rather than on the evidence and reasoning of the argument itself.
A logical fallacy where emotions of anger, hatred, or rage are substituted for evidence in an argument, often used to manipulate others into accepting a conclusion without rational support.
Using an authority as evidence when the authority is not actually an expert on the relevant facts. This fallacy occurs when an irrelevant authority is used to add credibility to a claim.
Accepting a claim based on a celebrity's status rather than the strength of their argument.
An appeal to coincidence dismisses evidence of a pattern or cause as mere chance without adequate support. Chance remains a possible explanation; the error is using it to avoid examining contrary evidence.
An appeal to common belief treats a claim’s popularity as sufficient reason to accept it. The key question is whether the belief rests on evidence, including evidence assessed by relevant experts.
In place of evidence, attempting to establish a connection to the audience based on being a 'regular person' just like each of them, then suggesting that your proposition is something that all common folk believe or should accept.
This fallacy occurs when an arguer replaces solid evidence with the claim that a belief is widely known or universally accepted, assuming that popularity implies truth.
The appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy where the truth of a proposition is judged based on the positive or negative consequences of believing it, rather than on evidence.
The fallacy of using a dictionary's limited or current definition of a term as definitive evidence that the term cannot have other, expanded, or conflicting meanings, ignoring that dictionaries report usage and are not final authorities on meaning.
An appeal to desperation treats the need to act as sufficient reason to choose a particular action. Urgency alone does not show that the proposed action will help.
A fallacy that uses emotion in place of reason to win an argument, often as a form of manipulation instead of valid logic.
An appeal to force or fear threatens harm to persuade an audience to accept a conclusion. Such threats are often irrelevant to the point at issue and therefore fallacious.
The appeal to extremes is a logical fallacy that erroneously attempts to make a reasonable argument seem absurd by taking it to an extreme, often misusing the valid technique of reductio ad absurdum.
An appeal to faith offers belief itself as justification when reasons or evidence for a claim are requested. It leaves the requested support unanswered.
Harrison criticizes using faith as a substitute for evidence about factual claims. His central challenge is how such a method could distinguish one unsupported claim from a contradictory one.
When fear, not based on evidence or reason, is being used as the primary motivator to get others to accept an idea, proposition, or conclusion.
A logical fallacy that uses the threat of harm, whether physical or psychological, to force acceptance of a conclusion rather than providing relevant evidence.
A fallacy where flattery is used to win support for an argument instead of providing logical evidence.
The appeal to force fallacy occurs when force, coercion, or a threat of force is used in place of a valid reason to justify a conclusion, often to intimidate an opponent into acceptance.
A logical fallacy where a threat or promise of harmful consequences is used to support a conclusion, without relevance to the argument's merits. The fallacy depends on context: if the discussion is about the merits, threats are irrelevant; if it is about self-interest, it may not be fallacious.
A logical fallacy where one asserts that a conclusion must be accepted because it is the will of God or the gods, often without providing any rational evidence or reasoning.
A logical fallacy that uses the vague and undefined concept of 'human nature' as justification for actions or behaviors, often to excuse responsibility or to argue that certain behaviors are inevitable.
The appeal to ignorance fallacy argues that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false, or false because it has not been proven true, incorrectly using lack of evidence as grounds for truth or falsity.