Logical Fallacies

Logical Fallacies Overview

• Argumentum ad antiquitatem: Justifies policies or practices based on historical longevity, implying that tradition equates to correctness.

• Argumentum ad hominem: Attacks the individual presenting an idea instead of addressing the idea itself, undermining legitimate arguments.

• Argumentum ad ignorantiam: Claims something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false; for example, using lack of evidence against global warming as proof of its existence.

• Argumentum ad logicam: Dismisses a claim as false solely based on the invalidity of its supporting argument, ignoring the possibility of the claim itself being true.

• Argumentum ad misericordiam: Appeals to pity to win an argument, leveraging emotional responses rather than logical reasoning.

• Argumentum ad nauseam: Attempts to validate a claim through excessive repetition, regardless of the truth of the claim.

• Argumentum ad numerum: Argues that a claim is true based solely on the number of people who believe it, rather than assessing its validity.

• Argumentum ad populum: Utilizes public agreement as evidence for a claim, which does not inherently make the claim valid.

• Argumentum ad verecundiam: Relies on the authority of an individual to validate a proposition, which may be flawed if the individual lacks relevant expertise.

• Circulus in demonstrando: Involves using the conclusion as a premise in the argument, creating a circular reasoning fallacy.

• Complex question: Constructs an argument that assumes the truth of something without evidence, misleadingly framing the query.

• Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: Mistakes correlation for causation, incorrectly concluding one event causes another merely because they occur together.

• Dicto simpliciter: Makes broad generalizations that do not hold true for every instance, leading to stereotypes.

• Nature, appeal to: Presumes that what is "natural" is inherently good, while anything conflicting with nature is bad, lacking rational basis.

• Non Sequitur: Presents conclusions that do not logically follow from the premises, examples include unrelated conclusions from reasoning.

• Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Asserts causation based solely on chronological order, exemplified by mistakenly linking childhood behavior to later actions without evidence.

• Red herring: Introduces irrelevant information to divert attention from the real issue, weakening the argument.

• Slippery slope: Suggests that one small action will lead to significant and often negative consequences without substantiating the causal connection.

• Straw man: Misrepresents or oversimplifies an opponent's argument to easily counter it, disregarding the actual position held.