THE REFERENCE LIBRARY
A growing collection of ideas for understanding the world — and your own thinking.
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.
A logical fallacy that assumes natural is always better than unnatural, often adopted as a default belief without justification.
Claiming that something that is new or modern is superior to the status quo, based exclusively on its newness.
The fallacy of appeal to personal incredulity occurs when someone assumes that if they cannot understand or imagine something, it must be false. It often appears in debates over science and expert opinions, especially when those opinions conflict with deeply held beliefs.
A logical fallacy where an arguer attempts to evoke pity to support a conclusion that is not logically supported by relevant evidence.
This fallacy occurs when an argument uses irrelevant considerations—such as pity, fear, or consequences—to support a conclusion that should be based on other criteria, often involving an equivocation on the term 'should.'
A logical fallacy that uses an emotional plea for sympathy to support a claim instead of providing relevant evidence or reasoning.
Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This fallacy relies on the mistaken belief that if something is popular, it must be good, true, or valid.
A logical fallacy where a conclusion is assumed to be true not because it is probably true, but because it is possible—no matter how improbable.
A logical fallacy where one assumes something is true or will happen simply because it is probable or possible, ignoring the need for definitive proof.
The appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy that dismisses a claim by mocking or making fun of it, rather than providing relevant evidence. It is a fallacy of relevance because ridicule does not disprove a statement, and many seemingly ridiculous beliefs turn out to be true.
The Appeal to the Moon fallacy occurs when someone argues that because a seemingly impossible task (like putting a man on the moon) was achieved, other difficult tasks are equally achievable, ignoring differences in feasibility, resources, and probability.
An appeal to the people uses a group’s beliefs or feelings to support a conclusion. McCraw distinguishes epistemic and emotive forms, explaining why popularity alone does not establish truth and examining when group testimony might still provide relevant evidence.
A logical fallacy that uses the longevity of a practice as a justification for its continuation, ignoring relevant evidence and moral considerations. It can prevent progress and perpetuate harmful beliefs and institutions.
Edward de Bono argues that lateral-thinking exercises can be adapted from age seven through university and beyond. He recommends visual demonstrations for younger children and choosing the complexity of an exercise to suit the learners.
A framework that uses the eight elements of reasoning (purpose, question, information, interpretation, concepts, assumptions, implications, point of view) to generate deeper, more critical questions within a specific academic or professional discipline.
Psychologists may misapply normative models from disciplines like statistics and logic when interpreting experimental responses, leading to erroneous claims of cognitive bias. Critics argue that researchers, not subjects, often misunderstand the logic of the problem.
Appreciative Inquiry develops strengths and promising possibilities. The source illustrates the approach with four responses to suggestions, contrasting early rejection with a willingness to build on an idea.
Reframe disagreements as collaborative dances rather than combative battles. Acknowledge common ground, use fewer strong points, respect autonomy, and discuss the conversation process to foster constructive dialogue.
A framework for evaluating group decision-making by checking for substitution of easier questions, use of inside versus outside view, and diversity of perspectives to avoid correlated errors and improve judgment.
Initial prices, even if arbitrary, become anchors that shape our willingness to pay for that product and related products, creating a coherent pattern of decisions influenced by the first imprint.
An archetype-based interpretation of film characters describes how combinations of traits change the way a character appeals to an audience. The passage applies a gendered sexual-strategy taxonomy to these changes.
Archetypes are recurring patterns or roles in stories. Jung linked them to a collective unconscious; writers can use familiar roles while developing characters beyond them.
Taleb argues that large urban plans can lock in expensive mistakes and that buildings need room for gradual adaptation. His preference for detailed, organically developed neighborhoods informs his criticism of modernist design and his reading of Jacobs and Brand.
The authors distinguish reports of enduring attitudes from reports of what someone is experiencing now. They argue that participants sincerely reported feeling better than forecast, while leaving open whether sincere reports of current experience can be judged wrong.
Thaler and Sunstein argue that transparent nudges can respect people’s capacity to deliberate and can remain effective after disclosure. Hidden defaults and difficult opt-outs raise a different concern: people may not understand or be able to change the choice made for them.
This text challenges the assumption that more data always leads to better predictions, using examples like weather forecasting (chaos theory) and the Netflix Prize to illustrate inherent limits in inference, especially for human behavior.
The fallacy of assuming that because an argument contains a logical fallacy, its conclusion is necessarily false. Even if a claim is poorly argued, the claim itself may still be true.
A logical fallacy that substitutes facts and evidence with emotionally charged words to manipulate others into accepting a conclusion without valid reasoning.
A logical fallacy where rapid speech is mistaken for intelligence or confidence, and thus taken as evidence for the truth of the argument; also committed by speakers who rush to prevent audience processing.
The Argument by Gibberish fallacy occurs when incomprehensible jargon or incoherent gibberish is used to give the appearance of a strong argument, replacing evidence or valid reasoning, often leading the audience to accept the conclusion due to confusion or intimidation.
Accepting a claim because the speaker is charming or flattering substitutes a personal impression for reasons relevant to the claim. Charm can make an argument more persuasive without making it stronger.
Argument by repetition is a logical fallacy where a claim is repeated persistently to persuade an audience, relying on psychological familiarity rather than evidence or logic. It is a form of propaganda often used in politics and rhetoric.
The argument from adverse consequences is a logical fallacy where one argues that a proposition is false because its truth would lead to undesirable consequences. It conflates pragmatic considerations with factual truth, committing a fallacy of relevance.
The misconception that previous generations had superior wisdom, leading to acceptance of aged ideas without critical evaluation.
The argument from authority fallacy occurs when a claim is supported by a false or irrelevant authority figure rather than by evidence or reasoned argument. Legitimate authorities must be experts in the specific context, and even experts can be wrong.
The argument from fallacy occurs when one concludes that a claim is false because the argument supporting it is fallacious. Truth and falsity are features of claims, not reasoning, so a fallacious argument does not guarantee a false conclusion.
An argument from hearsay relies on a report passed through someone who did not witness the event. Its strength depends on the original source, the accuracy of transmission, and the possibility of checking the account.
An argument from ignorance treats a claim as established because it has not been disproved, or as impossible because it has not been demonstrated. Ask whether the missing evidence would actually be expected if the claim were true.