Examples of Fallacies A fallacy is defined as a mistake in belief based on an unsound argument.

There are many different types of such mistakes that can occur. Ads by Google Facebook - Official Site Kumonekta sa Kaibigan, Kapamilya at Kaklase. Gumawa ng Profile Ngayon! Facebook.com Fallacies in Arguments Here are some examples of fallacies you may encounter when making an argument: Appeal to Ignorance - An appeal to ignorance occurs when one person uses another persons lack of knowledge on a particular subject as evidence that their own argument is correct. For example: You cant prove that there arent Martians living in caves under the surface of Mars, so it is reasonable for me to believe there are. Appeal to Authority - This type of fallacy is also referred to as Argumentum ad Verecundia (argument from modesty). In this case, rather than focusing on the merits of an argument, the arguer will try to attach their argument to a person of authority in an attempt to give credence to their argument. For example: Well, Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy, do you think you know more than Isaac Newton? Appeal to Popular Opinion - This type of appeal is when someone claims that an idea or belief is true simply because it is what most people believe. For example: Lots of people bought this album, so it must be good. Association Fallacy - Sometimes called "guilt by association," this occurs when someone links a specific idea or practice with something or someone negative in order to infer guilt on another person. For example: Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore, I dont trust vegetarians.

Attacking the Person - Also known as Argumentum ad Hominem (argument against the man), this is quite a common occurrence in debates and refers to a person who substitutes a rebuttal with a personal insult. For example: Dont listen to Eddies arguments on education, hes an idiot.

Begging the Question - This type of fallacy is when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the phrasing of the question itself. For example: If aliens didnt steal my newspaper, who did? (assume that the newspaper was actually stolen).

Circular Argument - Also referred to as Circulus in Probando, this fallacy is when an argument takes its proof from a factor within the argument itself, rather than from an external one. For example: I believe that Frosted Flakes are great because it says so on the Frosted Flakes packaging.

Correlation Implies Causation Fallacy - Otherwise known as Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, this is a fallacy in which the person making the argument connects two events which happen sequentially and assumes that one caused the other. For example: I saw a magpie and ten minutes later, I crashed my car, therefore, magpies are bad luck.

False Dilemma/Dichotomy - Sometimes referred to as Bifurcation, this type of fallacy occurs when someone presents their argument in such a way that there are only two possible options. For example: If you dont vote for this candidate, you must be a Communist.

Non Sequitur - A fallacy wherein someone asserts a conclusion that does not follow from the propositions. For example: All Dubliners are from Ireland. Ronan is not a Dubliner, therefore, he is not Irish.

Slippery Slope - Assuming that a very small action will inevitably lead to extreme and often ludicrous outcomes. For example: If we allow gay people to get married, whats next? Allowing people to marry their dogs? As you can see, there are many different types of fallacies that you may encounter. Arguing with someone who uses false logic like this can be a frustrating experience, but now that you know these are examples of fallacies, you can identify what they are doing and spot the lapse in logic right away. There are different kinds of logical fallacies that people make in presenting their positions. Below is a list of some of the major fallacies. It is a good idea to be familiar with them so you can point them out in a discussion, thereby focusing the issues where they belong while exposing error. It is true that during a debate on an issue, if you simply point out to your "opponent" a logical fallacy that he/she has just made, it generally gives you the upper hand. But then, merely having the upper hand is not the goal: truth is. Nevertheless, logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is very useful. 1. Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument. A. Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true. B. Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment. 2. Appeal to Force - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.

A. Example: If you don't want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say. B. Example: Convert or die. 3. Appeal to Pity - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc. A. Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you. B. Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline. 4. Appeal to the Popular - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it. A. Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good. B. Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you? 5. Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time. A. Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way. B. Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true. 6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular. A. Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.

B. Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him. 7. Cause and Effect - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together. A. Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise. B. Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas. 8. Circular Argument - See Begging the Question 9. Fallacy of Division - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts. A. Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue. B. Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too. 10.Fallacy of Equivocation - Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings. A. Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush. B. Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species. 11.False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

A. Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it? (Someone else could have knocked the glass over) B. Example: Do you still beat your wife? 12.Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim. A. Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it. B. Example: Frank just got out of jail last year; since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him. 13.Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another. A. Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad. B. Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you. 14.Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion. A. Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car. B. Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine. 15.Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.

A. Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject. B. Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser. 16.Red Herring - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand. A. Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems. B. Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you. 17.Special Pleading (double standard) Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself. A. Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man. B. Example: Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you. 18.Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it. A. Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor. B. Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys. 19.Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property.

Attributing facts of one kind are attributed to another kind. Attributing to one category that which can only be properly attributed to another. A. Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday. B. Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn't. An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in ones own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric. What is a Logical Fallacy? A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say roughly speaking because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of wellknown errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above. Formal and Informal Fallacies There are several different ways in which fallacies may be categorised. Its possible, for instance, to distinguish between formal fallacies and informal fallacies.

Formal Fallacies (Deductive Fallacies) Philosophers distinguish between two types of argument: deductive and inductive. For each type of argument, there is a different understanding of what counts as a fallacy. Deductive arguments are supposed to be watertight. For a deductive argument to be a good one (to be valid) it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion. The classic example of a deductively valid argument is: (1) All men are mortal. (2) Socrates is a man. Therefore: (3) Socrates is mortal. It is simply not possible that both (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false, so this argument is deductively valid. Any deductive argument that fails to meet this (very high) standard commits a logical error, and so, technically, is fallacious. This includes many arguments that we would usually accept as good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly probable, but not certain. Arguments of this kind, arguments that arent deductively valid, are said to commit a formal fallacy. Informal Fallacies Inductive arguments neednt be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good arguments. Good inductive arguments lend support to their conclusions, but even if their premises are true then that doesnt establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true. Even a good inductive argument with true premises might have a false conclusion; that the argument is a good one and that its premises

are true only establishes that its conclusion is probably true. All inductive arguments, even good ones, are therefore deductively invalid, and so fallacious in the strictest sense. The premises of an inductive argument do not, and are not intended to, entail the truth of the arguments conclusion, and so even the best inductive argument falls short of deductive validity. Because all inductive arguments are technically invalid, different terminology is needed to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments than is used to distinguish good and bad deductive arguments (else every inductive argument would be given the bad label: invalid). The terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are strong and weak. An example of a strong inductive argument would be: (1) Every day to date the law of gravity has held. Therefore: (2) The law of gravity will hold tomorrow. Arguments that fail to meet the standards required of inductive arguments commit fallacies in addition to formal fallacies. It is these informal fallacies that are most often described by guides to good thinking, and that are the primary concern of most critical thinking courses and of this site. Logical and Factual Errors Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, i.e. inferences where the premises dont give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious. What is less clear is whether arguments containing false premises but which are otherwise fine should be called fallacious. If a fallacy is an error of reasoning, then strictly speaking such arguments are not fallacious;

their reasoning, their logic, is sound. However, many of the traditional fallacies are of just this kind. Its therefore best to define fallacy in a way that includes them; this site will therefore use the word fallacy in a broad sense, including both formal and informal fallacies, and both logical and factual errors. Taxonomy of Fallacies Once it has been decided what is to count as a logical fallacy, the question remains as to how the various fallacies are to be categorised. The most common classification of fallacies groups fallacies of relevance, of ambiguity, and of presumption. Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance rely on premises that arent relevant to the truth of the conclusion. The various irrelevant appeals are all fallacies of relevance, as are ad hominems. Arguments that commit fallacies of ambiguity, such as equivocation or the straw manfallacy, manipulate language in misleading ways. Arguments that commit fallacies of presumption contain false premises, and so fail to establish their conclusion. For example, arguments based on a false dilemma orcircular arguments both commit fallacies of presumption. These categories have to be treated quite loosely. Some fallacies are difficult to place in any category; others belong in two or three. The No True Scotsman fallacy, for example, could be classified either as a fallacy of ambiguity (an attempt to switch definitions of Scotsman) or as a fallacy of presumption (it begs the question, reinterpreting the evidence to fit its conclusion rather than forming its conclusion on the basis of the evidence).