A list of common fallacies
Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning, as opposed to making mistakes that are of a factual nature. The study of fallacies is an application of the principles of critical thinking. Being familiar with typical fallacies can help us avoid them. We would also be in a position to explain other people’s mistakes.
Here are some examples of common fallacies:
ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”)
A theory is discarded not because of any evidence against it or lack of evidence for it, but because of the person who argues for it. Example:
- A: The Government should enact minimum-wage legislation so that workers are not exploited.
- B: Nonsense. You say that only because you cannot find a good job.
ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)
The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of lack of evidence against it. A simple obvious example of such fallacy is to argue that unicorns exist because there is no evidence against such a claim. At first sight it seems that many theories that we describe as scientific involve such a fallacy. E.g. the first law of thermodynamics holds because so far there has not been any negative instance that would serve as evidence against it. But notice, as in cases like this, there is evidence for the law, namely positive instances. Notice also that this fallacy does not apply to situations where there are only two rival claims and one has already been falsified, then we may justly establish the truth of the other even if we cannot find evidence for or against it.
ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)
In offering an argument, pity is appealed to. Usually this happens when people argue for special treatment on the basis of their need. E.g. a student argues that the teacher should let him/her pass the examination because he/she needs it in order to graduate. Of course, pity might be a relevant consideration in certain conditions, as in contexts involving charity.
ad populum (appeal to popularity)
The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of its popularity and familiarity. This is the fallacy committed by many commercials. Surely you have heard of commercials implying that we should buy a certain product because it has made to the top of a sales rank, or because the brand is the city’s “favourite”.
Affirming the consequent
Inferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it is also true that if P is true, Q is true.
The problem with this type of reasoning is that it ignores the possibility that there are other conditions apart from P that might lead to Q. For example, if there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But if we argue from his being late to there being a traffic jam, we are guilty of this fallacy – the colleague may be late due to a faulty alarm clock.
Of course, if we have evidence showing that P is the only or most likely condition that leads to Q, then we can infer that P is likely to be true without committing a fallacy.
Begging the question (petito principii)
In arguing for a claim, the claim itself is already assumed in the premise. Example: “God exists because this is what the Bible says, and the Bible is reliable because it is the word of God.”
Complex question or loaded question
A question is posed in such a way that a person, no matter what answer he/she gives to the question, will inevitably commit him/herself to some other claim, which should not be presupposed in the context in question.
A common tactic is to ask a yes-no question that tricks people to agree to something they never intended to say. For example, if you are asked “Are you still as self-centred as you used to be?”, then no matter you answer “yes” or “no”, you are bound to admit that you were self-centred in the past. Of course, the same question would not count as a fallacy if the presupposition of the question is indeed accepted in the conversational context.
Composition (opposite of division)
The whole is assumed to have the same properties as its parts. Anne might be humorous and fun-loving and an excellent person to invite to the party. The same might be true of Ben, Chris and David considered individually. But it does not follow that it will be a good idea to invite all of them to the party. Perhaps they hate each other and the party will be ruined.
Denying the antecedent
Inferring that Q is false just because if P is true, Q is also true, but P is false.
This fallacy is similar to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Again the problem is that some alternative explanation or cause might be overlooked. Although P is false, some other condition might be sufficient to make Q true.
Example: If there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But it is not right to argue in the light of a smooth traffic that the colleague will not be late. Again, his alarm clock may have stopped working.
Division (opposite of composition)
The parts of a whole is assumed to have the same properties of the whole. It is possible that, on a whole, a company is very effective, while some of its departments are not. It would be inappropriate to assume they all are.
Putting forward an argument where a word changes meaning without having it pointed out. For example, some philosophers argue that all acts are selfish. Even if you strive to serve others, you are still acting selfishly because your act is just to satisfy your desire to serve others. But surely the word “selfish” means differently in the premise and the conclusion – when we say a person is selfish we usually mean that he does not strive to serve others. To say that a person is selfish because he is doing something he wants, even when what he wants is to help others, is to use the term “selfish” with a different meaning.
Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others that are worth considering in the context. Example: “Every person is either my enemy or my friend. If he/she is my enemy I should hate him/her. If he/she is my friend I should love him/her. So I should either love him/her or hate him/her.” Obviously, the conclusion is too extreme because most people are neither your enemy nor your friend.
Assumption is made to take some independent statistics as dependent. The untrained mind tends to think that, e.g. if a fair coin is tossed five times and the results are all heads, then the next toss will more likely be a tail. It will not be, however. If the coin is fair, the result for each toss is completely independent of the others. Notice the fallacy hinges on the fact that the final result is not known. Had the final result been known already, the statistics would have been dependent.
Thinking that because X dervies from Y, and Y has a certain property, X must have the same property also. Example: “His father is a criminal, so he must also be up to no good.”
A conclusion is drawn which does not follow from the premise. This is not a specific fallacy but a very general term for a bad argument. So a lot of the examples above and below can be said to be non sequitur.
Latin word for question begging.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (literally, “after this, therefore because of this”)
Inferring that X must be the cause of Y just because X is followed by Y.
For example, having visited a graveyard, I fell ill and infer that graveyards are spooky places that cause illnesses. Of course, this inference is not warranted since this might just be a coincidence. However, a lot of superstituous beliefs commit this fallacy.
Within an argument some irrelevant issue is raised which diverts attention from the main subject. The function of the red herring is sometimes to help express a strong, biased opinion. The red herring (the irrelevant issue) serves to increase the force of the argument in a very misleading manner.
For example, in a debate as to whether God exists, someone might argue that believing in God gives peace and meaning to many people’s lives. This would be an example of a red herring since whether religions can have a positive effect on people is irrelevant to the question of the existence of God. The good psychological effect of a belief is not a reason for thinking that the belief is true.
Arguing that if an opponent were to accept some claim C1, then he or she has to accept some other closely related claim C2, which in turn commits the opponent to a still further claim C3, eventually leading to the conclusion that the opponent is committed to something absurd or obviously unacceptable.
This style of argumentation constitutes a fallacy only when it is inappropriate to think if one were to accept the initial claim, one must accept all the other claims.
An example: “The government should not prohibit drugs. Otherwise the government should also ban alcohol or cigarettes. And then fatty food and junk food would have to be regulated too. The next thing you know, the government would force us to brush our teeth and do exercises everyday.”
Attacking an opponent by attributing to him/her an implausible position that is easily defeated when this is not actually the opponent’s position.
Example: When many people argue for more democracy in Hong Kong, a typical reply is to say that this is not warranted because it is wrong to think that democracy is the solution to all of Hong Kong’s problems, or to say that one should not blindly accept democracy. But those who support democracy never suggest that democracy can solve all problems (e.g. pollution), and they might also agree that blindly accepting something is rarely correct, whether it is democracy or not. Those criticisms attack implausible “strawman” positions and do not address the real arguments for democracy.
Where there is contradicting evidence, only confirming evidence is presented.
From My Philosophy Professors
- Dr. Joe Lau
Department of Philosophy, University of Hong Kong
- Dr. Jonathan Chan
Department of Religion and Philosophy, Baptist University of Hong Kong
26 thoughts on “Logic: Fallacies”
Decent article. I have a similar, though more in depth, article here: http://bereansdesk.blogspot.ca/2014/02/fallacious-arguments.html
I also have an article that deals with what logic is here: http://bereansdesk.blogspot.ca/2012/11/logic.html
Interesting list. I don’t recall seeing such an extensive one… and well worded. You might add that your “Begging the question” is often called “Circular reasoning”. Personally, I think of begging the question as something a bit different… generally see it used in the sense of raising another related question that has not been answered (or something like that).
Coming via lots of study of both theology and psychology, I think in terms of your “post hoc…” as “correlation does not equal causation” or just “correlation is not causation”. This is an extremely common fallacy in my observation… committed easily by any of us unless we have cultivated a habit of questioning our OWN reasoning process as well as others’. We look for any support for our personal theories and finding a correlation which may have no causal connection whatever is one often-ready source. “Culture warriors” commit this one a LOT. Things like “ever since prayer in schools was outlawed in 1962, the culture has gone downhill (followed by a list of social ills); or “ever since Roe v. Wade….” Oh, and wasn’t the Vietnam War (and dozens of other cultural forces) in there also? (But THAT doesn’t fit the theory neatly.)
Just stumbled upon your blog today. I am enjoying it and really love logic. I am a believer, but have often be bothered by fellow believers comments about prayers and contributing everything to answer to prayer. For example, one friend recently gave testimony of this. 1) She prayed for a close parking spot to open up (mothers with young children would understand why) 2) She drove in the parking lot and a spot had just opened up. Therefore, God answered her prayer. However, wouldn’t this be the fallacy Post Hoc?
If I were you, I would not dismiss her testimony as post hoc because I am not in a position to affirm nor deny her subjective personal experience. I would be skeptical though 🙂 since it is possible to think of someone else with just like her at the some time who prayed the opposite of what she prayed. What is the testimony of that other person, then?
Nice blog, but everything seems to be about religion. A few days ago, you made the generous offer of studying Aquinas with me. Thanks for that, but I’m going to be postponing that for now. I’ll probably stop by from time to time. So long for now.
Christians love to use complicated arguments when a simple, commonsense answer won’t suffice.
I think the vernacular term would be “Baffle them with BS”
William Lane Craig is a past mater at such nonsense.
Thank you for letting me know that 🙂
It is my pleasure to enlighten those who are in darkness.
Remember. Ignorance is curable, stupidity might not be. There is hope, so do not despair. 😉
As long as there is hope, I will not despair 😀
It’s too bad you don’t apply your “enlightenment” to yourself. So which are you, Arkenaten? Ignorant or stupid? 😉
So, is belief based on ignorance or stupidity?
So, is your belief based on ignorance or stupidity?
PD, I appreciate the way in which you responded to these comments. Give them grace, brother.
Why would you accept an answer that won’t suffice? If, categorically speaking, in some instance a simple answer won’t suffice, then by definition your only solution is something more nuanced.
And what is a past mater? A misspelling of the Beatles’ compilation album?
Funny, my observations and experiences have shown that it is atheists, evolutionists, and cults who love to use complicated arguments because they fail to grasp simple common sense, reason, and logic.
Pray son (tee hee)
I’m very happy to meet a fellowed Reformed Christian (given up you old ways, hey). Enjoying your topics.
Re your “Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning, as opposed to making mistakes that are of a factual nature.”
Other useful terms, which we all know, are “logic” and “truth.” We may reason illogically about facts (what is true. Logic = how we think; truth = what we think(roughly speaking).
On my blog, I sometimes get ad hominems thrown at me, as we all experience and hopefully don’t indulge in ourselves. I bet you haven’t heard of the Jewish version of ad hominem. Before I say what it is, I need to explain that there is a Jewish bun called “homentashen.” Do I need to spell out what the Jewish version is?
A teeny typo: “Thinking that because X DERVIES from Y.”
I have a close friend that started at McDonalds. He went to college many years. Reads a lot of books. Was a lawyer. Now is a Missionary. I don’t think that getting a minimum wage job is demeaning, it’s a start. With hard work and perseverance, you will get promotion after promotion.
Thanks for the great post. I appreciate how you broke out the fallacies and gave examples of each. Looking forward to more posts!
Prayson, this is great stuff. Will definitely be following you 🙂 Thanks for checking my blog out – may the Lord continue blessing you and your family.
Are you familiar with the false flag?
It is used by consideration trolls.
C. C. T.
Brilliant. I’m actually thinking about writing a post soon showing some common logical fallacies in both Atheist/Theist circles, utilizing actual examples that I have come across. I’ll definitely be referring back to this and referring others to this in the future.
Thank you Tafacory.
Hi, nice to meet you !
Class in Logic will be on normal Posts, for Pages does not allow short post 🙂
Interesting blog. I like it. Keep up Christ’s work. wjholland.wordpress.com
Thank you so much, I have being to your site, keep up the Christ’s work to you to my friend.