Underpinnings of Informal Fallacies

Jeffrey Slee — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 04:29:05 +0000

Informal fallacies *The types of mistakes in reasoning that arise from the mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting the argument.*
Ad hoc	Using an off-the-cuff explanation with no evidentiary support.
Ad hominem	Attacking the opponent directly rather than addressing the opponent’s idea.
Ambiguity	Ambiguity occurs when linguistic ambiguity causes the form of an argument to appear validating when it is not.
Argument by assertion	The belief that if you say a thing enough times, it becomes true and you win the argument.
Argumentum ex culo	Making things up.
Argument from ignorance	Basing the truth of a premise only on whether it has been proved to your satisfaction.
Argument from incredulity	Literally “that’s unbelievable = that’s obviously not real”. This kind of thinking would quickly put an end to virtually all quantum physics.
Argument from adverse consequences	Arguing against a point based on expected negative outcome.
Argument from authority	Because someone famous/powerful/respected believes it, it must be true.
Association fallacy	Associating the values of one group with the values of another due to superficial or co-incidental similarities.
Balance fallacy	Giving equal weighting to both sides of an argument, even if one really doesn’t deserve the time.
Begging the question	Assuming the conclusion as part of the premise (similar to circular reasoning).
Bullshit	Deceit through obfuscation.
Correlation does not equal causation	Two events can consistently correlate with each other but not have any causal relationship.
Equivocation	Deliberately substituting the meaning of a given word in one context for another that is inappropriate to make your argument.
False analogy	Creating an analogy or metaphor, then extending it to prove one’s point.
False dilemma	Portraying two options as the only possibilities, with no middle ground (see Pascal’s wager for an example).
Moving the goalposts	Changing evidential requirements in an argument once they have been met, “what I really meant was…”
Negative proof	Arguing that something must exist because there is no evidence it does not exist.
No True Scotsman	Excluding an inconveniently misbehaving member of a class to defend the class as a whole.
Non sequitur	Giving an evasive or nonsensical answer to a challenge.One single proof: Dismissing all circumstantial evidence in favor of a single “smoking gun” that may not (and may not need to) exist.
Poisoning the well	Attempting to refute an argument based on the perceived veracity of the presenter.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc	Saying that because event A happened before B, A must have caused B.
Red herring	A group of fallacies which bring up a fact which is irrelevant to the issue. Guilt by association: (eg: Godwin’s Law) Saying that something is bad because a bad person or group did it. Honor by association: Saying that something is good because a good person or group did it. My enemy’s enemy: Supporting someone because they oppose the same people Argumentum ad baculum: Attempting to intimidate an opponent (baculum is Latin for “stick”). Argumentum ad populum: or bandwagon — Arguing for a point based on popularity rather than merit. Argumentum ad verecundiam: “Argument from shame”. Also see emotional appeal.
Slippery slope	If event A happens, it will lead downhill to further undesirable results. For example, “if we allow gays to get married, then we’ll have to let men marry little kids”.
Spotlight fallacy	Assuming aspects of a group from aspects from a smaller observed part of the group
Straw man	Falsifying an opponent’s position for greater rhetorical flexibility.
Style over substance fallacy	Using language or rhetoric to enhance the appeal of an argument, but not its validity.
Texas sharpshooter	A data mining fallacy and pattern recognition error where the arguer makes an ad hoc conclusion from a set of unrelated data without looking for corroborating data.
Galileo gambit	This states that if someone is going against the tide of popular thinking, they must be right because the likes of Galileo were right, while in reality, Galileo was right for the more simple reason that he was right.

Logic – For the love of it

Jeffrey Slee

Share and Enjoy:

Galileo Gambit

Jeffrey Slee — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:52:35 +0000

Galileo Gambit

classification : informal – Straw man

The Galileo fallacy is the idea that if you are widely vilified for your ideas, you must therefore be right.

Foundations

“The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” –Carl Sagan

Examples

They made fun of Galileo, and he was right. They make fun of me, therefore I am right.

Almost everyone thought Galileo was wrong, but he turned out to be right. Therefore, just because almost everyone thinks something is true, doesn’t make it so.

Don’t lecture me about my report card. Eisenstein was a poor student and look how he turned out.

Other Names

argumentum ad populum

argument from consensus