critical thinking logical fallacies list

• Get started with computers
• Learn Microsoft Office
• Apply for a job
• Improve my work skills
• Design nice-looking docs
• Getting Started
• Smartphones & Tablets
• Typing Tutorial
• Online Learning
• Basic Internet Skills
• Online Safety
• Social Media
• Zoom Basics
• Google Docs
• Google Sheets
• Career Planning
• Resume Writing
• Cover Letters
• Job Search and Networking
• Business Communication
• Entrepreneurship 101
• Careers without College
• Job Hunt for Today
• 3D Printing
• Freelancing 101
• Personal Finance
• Sharing Economy
• Decision-Making
• Graphic Design
• Photography
• Image Editing
• Learning WordPress
• Language Learning
• Critical Thinking
• For Educators
• Translations
• Staff Picks
• English expand_more expand_less

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making  - Logical Fallacies

Critical thinking and decision-making  -, logical fallacies, critical thinking and decision-making logical fallacies.

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: Logical Fallacies

Lesson 7: logical fallacies.

/en/problem-solving-and-decision-making/how-critical-thinking-can-change-the-game/content/

Logical fallacies

If you think about it, vegetables are bad for you. I mean, after all, the dinosaurs ate plants, and look at what happened to them...

Let's pause for a moment: That argument was pretty ridiculous. And that's because it contained a logical fallacy .

A logical fallacy is any kind of error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid . They can involve distorting or manipulating facts, drawing false conclusions, or distracting you from the issue at hand. In theory, it seems like they'd be pretty easy to spot, but this isn't always the case.

Watch the video below to learn more about logical fallacies.

Sometimes logical fallacies are intentionally used to try and win a debate. In these cases, they're often presented by the speaker with a certain level of confidence . And in doing so, they're more persuasive : If they sound like they know what they're talking about, we're more likely to believe them, even if their stance doesn't make complete logical sense.

False cause

One common logical fallacy is the false cause . This is when someone incorrectly identifies the cause of something. In my argument above, I stated that dinosaurs became extinct because they ate vegetables. While these two things did happen, a diet of vegetables was not the cause of their extinction.

Maybe you've heard false cause more commonly represented by the phrase "correlation does not equal causation ", meaning that just because two things occurred around the same time, it doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other.

A straw man is when someone takes an argument and misrepresents it so that it's easier to attack . For example, let's say Callie is advocating that sporks should be the new standard for silverware because they're more efficient. Madeline responds that she's shocked Callie would want to outlaw spoons and forks, and put millions out of work at the fork and spoon factories.

A straw man is frequently used in politics in an effort to discredit another politician's views on a particular issue.

Begging the question

Begging the question is a type of circular argument where someone includes the conclusion as a part of their reasoning. For example, George says, “Ghosts exist because I saw a ghost in my closet!"

George concluded that “ghosts exist”. His premise also assumed that ghosts exist. Rather than assuming that ghosts exist from the outset, George should have used evidence and reasoning to try and prove that they exist.

Since George assumed that ghosts exist, he was less likely to see other explanations for what he saw. Maybe the ghost was nothing more than a mop!

False dilemma

The false dilemma (or false dichotomy) is a logical fallacy where a situation is presented as being an either/or option when, in reality, there are more possible options available than just the chosen two. Here's an example: Rebecca rings the doorbell but Ethan doesn't answer. She then thinks, "Oh, Ethan must not be home."

Rebecca posits that either Ethan answers the door or he isn't home. In reality, he could be sleeping, doing some work in the backyard, or taking a shower.

Most logical fallacies can be spotted by thinking critically . Make sure to ask questions: Is logic at work here or is it simply rhetoric? Does their "proof" actually lead to the conclusion they're proposing? By applying critical thinking, you'll be able to detect logical fallacies in the world around you and prevent yourself from using them as well.

Logical Fallacies (Common List + 21 Examples)

We all talk, argue, and make choices every day. Sometimes, the things we or others say can be a bit off or don't make complete sense. These mistakes in our thinking can make our points weaker or even wrong.

Logical fallacies are mistakes in how we reason or argue a point. They can be small mix-ups or times when someone tries to trick us on purpose.

By learning about these errors, you can better spot them when you hear or read them. As you read on, you'll learn more about these tricky mistakes and how to steer clear of them.

Introduction to Logical Fallacies

Imagine you're piecing together a puzzle. Each piece needs to fit perfectly for the whole picture to make sense. In conversations and debates, our arguments are like those puzzle pieces. They need to fit well together, making our points clear and strong.

However, sometimes, a piece might be bent or out of place, making the whole picture a bit off. That's how logical fallacies work in our discussions. They're like those misfit puzzle pieces that can make our whole argument seem less clear or even wrong.

Logical fallacies, in simple terms, are errors or mistakes in our reasoning. You might come across them when you're chatting with a friend, watching the news, or even reading a book.

Some of these mistakes happen because we don't know better, while others might be used intentionally to mislead or persuade.

Let's say you're discussing which ice cream flavor is the best. Your friend might say, "Well, my grandma thinks vanilla is the best, so it must be!" This kind of reasoning isn't strong because one person's opinion, even if it's your grandma, doesn't prove a point for everyone.

This is an example of a fallacy called appeal to authority . It’s just one of the many logical fallacies you'll come across.

When we talk about logical fallacies, we often categorize them into two main types: informal and formal.

Informal Fallacies

Think of these as mistakes or errors in reasoning that arise from the content of the arguments rather than the structure.

They're called 'informal' because they deal with everyday language and common conversations. These fallacies often involve statements that might sound true initially, but upon closer inspection, they don't hold up.

Examples include the ad hominem argument or fallacy, where someone attacks the person rather than their argument, or the appeal to authority , where someone assumes a statement is true because an expert or authority says so.

Formal Fallacies

These are a bit more, well, formal. They deal with errors in the structure or form of an argument.

It doesn't matter what the content of the argument is; if it's structured wrongly, it's a formal fallacy. You can think of these like a math problem: if you don't follow the right steps, you won't get the right answer.

An example of a formal fallacy is the affirming the consequent , which goes like this: "If it rains, the ground will be wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it rained." While the statements might sound logical, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.

In a nutshell, while informal fallacies stem from the content of arguments and often arise in casual conversations, formal fallacies are all about structure, and they can be spotted regardless of the topic being discussed.

All fallacies can be proven wrong because they have flawed reasoning or insufficient supporting evidence, make an irrelevant point, or don't have an actual argument. Even if it seems like they come to a logical conclusion, they do so in an illogical way.

Common Logical Fallacies

Let's look at some of the most common logical fallacy examples.

Ad Hoc Fallacy

This is a fallacy where someone makes up a reason on the spot to support their argument, even if it doesn't make sense.

Picture this: you're debating about climate change and its causes. Your friend, instead of using scientific evidence, says, "Well, it's just a cycle the Earth goes through. My grandpa said so!" This is an Ad Hoc Fallacy. The reason is made up on the spot and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Ad Hominem Fallacy

This is when someone attacks the person instead of their argument.

Imagine you're chatting about which game is the best, and instead of giving reasons, someone says, "Well, you wear glasses so that you wouldn’t understand!" That's not a good reason, right?

Anecdotal Fallacy

An Anecdotal Fallacy occurs when someone relies on personal experiences or individual cases as evidence for a general claim, overlooking larger and more reliable data.

Appeal to Pity

An Appeal to Pity Fallacy is an argument that attempts to win you over by eliciting your sympathy or compassion rather than relying on logical reasoning.

Straw Man Fallacy

Here, someone changes or oversimplifies another person's argument to make it easier to attack. It's like building a weak version of the original point and then knocking it down.

Person A: "I think we should have more regulations on industrial pollution to protect the environment." Person B: "Why do you want to destroy jobs and hurt our economy by shutting down all industries?" In this case, Person A never said they wanted to shut down all industries, but Person B set up a "straw man" version of Person A's argument to knock it down.

Ecological Fallacy

An Ecological Fallacy occurs when you make conclusions about individual members of a group based only on the characteristics of the group as a whole.

• Bandwagon Fallacy

This one's about popularity. Just because many people believe something doesn't mean it's true.

Remember when everyone believed the earth was flat? Being popular doesn't always mean being right.

Loaded Question

A loaded question fallacy is a trick question that contains an assumption or constraint that unfairly influences the answer, leading you toward a particular conclusion.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

This is when someone says that if one thing happens, other bad things will follow without good reasons.

Like if someone says, "If we let kids have phones, next they'll want to drive cars at 10 years old!" It's a big jump without clear logic connecting the two.

False Cause Fallacy

This is thinking one thing causes another just because they happen together.

Like believing every time you wear a certain shirt, your team wins. It's fun to think about, but the shirt probably isn't the reason for the win.

Appeal to Probability

An Appeal to Probability Fallacy is a misleading reasoning technique that assumes if something is likely, it must be certain to happen.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy

We talked about this one earlier! Just because someone famous or important believes something doesn't make it true.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy

This is when someone makes a broad claim based on very limited evidence .

For instance, after seeing two movies with a particular actor and not liking them, you declare, "All movies with this actor are terrible."

False Dichotomy Fallacy

This fallacy occurs when someone presents only two options or solutions when more exist.

Example: "You're either with us, or you're against us." In reality, someone might be neutral or have a more nuanced opinion.

Proof Fallacy (Argument from Ignorance)

This is when someone assumes something is true because it hasn't been proven false or vice versa.

Example: "No one has ever proven that aliens don't exist, so they must be real."

Tu Quoque Fallacy

This fallacy points out hypocrisy as an argument against the claim. It's like saying, "You too!"

Example: "Why are you telling me not to smoke when you used to smoke?"

Post Hoc Fallacy ( Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc)

This fallacy assumes that if 'B' occurred after 'A', then 'A' must have caused 'B'.

Example: "I wore my lucky socks, and then passed my exam. My socks made me pass!"

No True Scotsman Fallacy

This fallacy happens when someone redefines a term to fit their own writing or argument or to exclude a counterexample.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman, and puts sugar in his porridge." Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge."

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

This cognitive bias is when someone focuses on a subset of their data and ignores the rest to make a point.

Looking at a large set of data and only selecting the bits that support your claim, like a shooter firing randomly at a barn wall, then painting a target around the shots that are closest together.

Middle Ground Fallacy

Middle Ground is the belief that a compromise between two conflicting positions must be the truth or the best solution.

Red Herring Fallacy

This fallacy introduces an irrelevant topic to distract from the original argument.

For instance, when asked about pollution levels, a politician says, "We have some of the best parks in the country, and our citizens love spending time in nature."

False Analogy Fallacy

Any time someone says "X is like Y" to compare one thing with something else that isn't the same but does share similarities, they're making a false analogy .

For instance, saying cars and bicycles are the same because they both have wheels is an oversimplification.

Circular Reasoning Fallacy

This logical fallacy makes the mistake of using a claim to support itself . A is true because B is true.

Perhaps you've seen a commercial claiming a product is the best because so many people buy it. But when pressed on how they know so many buy it, they respond because the product is the best.

Accident Fallacy

An Accident Fallacy is the misuse of a general rule by applying it to a specific case it doesn’t properly address.

Begging the Question Fallacy

A begging-the question-fallacy occurs when the argument's conclusion is assumed in its premise. In other words, it's a form of circular reasoning where the thing you're trying to prove is already assumed to be true.

• Appeal to Ignorance

An Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa.

Fallacy of Composition

A fallacy of composition is the flawed reasoning that concludes what is true for individual parts must also be true for the entire group or system they belong to.

Equivocation Fallacy

An equivocation fallacy occurs when a word or phrase is used with two meanings in the same argument, leading to confusion or a misleading conclusion.

Naturalistic Fallacy

A naturalistic fallacy , also known as the appeal to nature fallacy, comes to a false conclusion by assuming that everything in nature is moral and right.

Why Do We Fall for Fallacies?

Everyone, at some point, has believed in something that turned out to be not entirely true. Just like when we believe in myths or fairy tales , there's something in our brains that can sometimes make us accept ideas without fully questioning them. This is where logical fallacies sneak in.

Firstly, our brains love shortcuts . These shortcuts, called heuristics , help us make decisions faster.

For example, if you've always had great pizza from a particular restaurant, the next time you think of pizza, your brain will likely suggest that place.

But shortcuts can also lead us astray. If someone speaks confidently, our brains might take a shortcut and believe them, even if what they're saying has mistakes.

Secondly, emotions play a big role . We're humans, after all! If someone tells a sad story, we might feel so touched that we don't stop to think if the story proves the point they're making.

Or if everyone in our group believes something, we might feel the need to fit in and believe it too. This is known as groupthink , a classic trap many fall into.

Lastly, sometimes it's just easier . Questioning everything and thinking critically can be tiring. So, there are moments when we might accept something because it's simpler or because we don't want to start an argument.

But here's the good news: by learning about logical fallacies and understanding why we sometimes fall for them, you can train your brain to spot and avoid these traps.

The History of Logical Fallacies

Back in the day, long before smartphones and computers, people gathered and debated big ideas in places like Greece. One of the smartest guys around then was a man named Aristotle . He's often thought of as the first person who cared about logical thinking.

Aristotle started to notice that some arguments, even if they sounded good, had problems in them. He began to point out these mistakes and gave them names. Many of the fallacies he talked about are still recognized today!

After Aristotle, many other thinkers also became interested in how we argue and reason. They noticed that these mistakes, or fallacies, weren't just random errors. They followed patterns.

Fast forward to modern times, and this study hasn't stopped. It's become even more important.

Today, with information everywhere - on TV, the internet, and social media - it's crucial to sort out what's reliable from what's not . Teachers, writers, and even politicians study logical fallacies to communicate better and avoid misleading people.

Basic Argument Structure

A good argument is built piece by piece, ensuring each is supported by the other. Understanding how arguments are put together helps you spot when a part of the argument doesn't make sense.

At the heart of any argument are two main parts: premises and conclusions .

Think of the premises as the foundation of the argument. They're the facts or reasons you give. The conclusion is the point you're trying to make based on those reasons.

Let's use a simple example. Imagine you say:

• All dogs bark. (This is a premise.)
• Rover is a dog. (This is another premise.)
• So, Rover barks. (This is the conclusion.)

In this case, the argument is pretty solid. Both premises support the conclusion. But, if you have a shaky premise like "All cats bark," your conclusion will be off, even if it sounds right.

Sometimes, arguments have more than two premises, or they might be more complicated. But no matter how big or fancy the argument is, the same rule applies: the premises must be solid to support a good conclusion.

Logical Fallacy Examples in Life

Logical fallacies might seem small or harmless, but they can influence our decisions, beliefs, and actions in significant ways.

Advertising

Consider the world of advertising. Ads often use emotional appeals or bandwagon techniques to convince you to buy a product.

"Everyone's using this toothpaste, so you should too!" or "This celebrity loves our shoes, and you will too!"

If we don't recognize these as bandwagon or appeal to authority fallacies, we might end up spending money on things we don't need.

Social Media

Then there's the realm of social media. We've all seen heated debates in comment sections.

People might attack someone's character instead of their ideas, which is the ad hominem fallacy. Or, someone might oversimplify another person's viewpoint, setting up a straw man argument to easily tear it down.

When we're unaware of these tactics, it's easy to get dragged into unproductive or hurtful conversations.

And it's not just online. In real life, we make decisions based on information from friends, family, news, and many other sources.

If we're not careful, we might base important choices on faulty logic. Like believing a certain health remedy works just because a famous person endorses it without checking the actual science behind it.

Tips to Avoid Falling for Logical Fallacies

Understanding logical fallacies is half the battle. But how do you avoid them in real life? It's a bit like avoiding potholes on a road. Once you know where they are and what they look like, you can steer clear.

Here are some handy tips to help you navigate the landscape of logic more safely.

• Stay Curious: Always be open to learning. The more knowledge you gather, the better you'll be able to recognize when something doesn't add up.
• Question Everything: Just because something sounds right doesn't mean it is. Like a detective, look for evidence and ask yourself if an argument makes sense.
• Slow Down: Our world is fast-paced. But sometimes, taking a moment to think before responding or making a decision can save you from falling into a logical trap.
• Stay Humble: Remember, it's okay to be wrong. If someone points out a flaw in your reasoning, thank them. It's a chance to learn and grow.
• Discuss with Others: Talking things out can be a great way to spot flaws. Different perspectives can shine a light on areas you might have missed.
• Educate Yourself: There are plenty of resources, including books and courses, that can deepen your understanding of logical thinking. The more you learn, the sharper your logic skills will become.
• Practice Makes Perfect: Like any skill, spotting logical fallacies gets easier with practice. Challenge yourself by analyzing arguments in articles, shows, or conversations. The more you do it, the better you'll get.

Remember, nobody's perfect. We all slip up from time to time. But with these tips in your toolkit, you'll be well on your way to clearer, more logical thinking.

Spot the Fallacy Quiz

Try to identify each fallacy based on the examples provided. The answers are provided at the end.

• "My mom said that broccoli is good for me, so it must be true."
• "Either you stand with us, or you’re against us."
• "She can’t be a great scientist. Have you seen how disorganized her office is?"
• "We know our product is the best because it’s the top-selling item in its category."
• "He can’t be a criminal; he comes from a nice family and attended a prestigious university."
• "Well, you smoke cigarettes, so you have no right to tell me not to eat junk food."
• "We can’t let the students have extra recess time; soon, they’ll want the whole school day to be a playground."
• "Everyone’s going to the big football game, so it must be amazing."
• "No one has proven that ghosts don’t exist, so they must be real."
• "He’s never been to Asia, so he can't possibly know how to prepare Asian cuisine."
• "You can’t trust John’s political opinion because he’s just a mechanic."
• "We’ve always done it this way, so it’s the best way to keep doing it."
• "You believe in evolution? Well, that’s just a theory!"
• "If you cared about the environment, you wouldn't drive a car."
• "Since you didn’t deny the allegations immediately, you must be guilty."
• "We don’t know what causes thunder, so it must be the gods showing their anger."
• "This anti-aging cream must work; see all these photos of people who look younger after using it!"
• "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!"
• "If we allow people to protest, it will encourage lawlessness and chaos."
• "We can't believe in climate change. Think of all the jobs we will lose in traditional industries!"
• Appeal to Authority
• False Dichotomy/Black and White Fallacy
• Genetic Fallacy
• Slippery Slope
• Argument from Ignorance
• No True Scotsman
• Appeal to Tradition
• Black-and-White Fallacy
• Argument from Silence
• God of the Gaps/Argument from Ignorance
• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
• Appeal to Consequence

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Logical Fallacies

What is a logical fallacy? A logical fallacy is an error or flaw in reasoning. These errors can weaken arguments and can be intentional or unintentional. They often appear to sound convincing but are based on faulty logic.

Why do people use logical fallacies? Some people might use them unintentionally due to a lack of knowledge or clarity in thinking. Others might use them strategically to persuade or deceive, especially if they believe their audience won't recognize the fallacy.

Are all fallacies intentional? No. Many fallacies are the result of honest mistakes or oversights in reasoning. However, some can be used manipulatively in debates, advertisements, or persuasive speeches.

What’s the difference between an informal and a formal fallacy? Informal fallacies are mistakes in reasoning based on the content of an opponent's argument, often arising in everyday language. Formal fallacies are structural errors in an argument, regardless of the argument's content.

Can a statement be true even if it contains a logical fallacy? Yes. A fallacy indicates flawed reasoning, not necessarily a false conclusion. However, conclusions reached through fallacious reasoning should be critically evaluated.

How can I improve my ability to spot logical fallacies? Educate yourself on different types of fallacies, engage in discussions, analyze arguments in various media, and regularly practice identifying them. Over time, spotting most common logical fallacies will become second nature.

Are logical fallacies a modern concept? No. The study of fallacies dates back to ancient Greece, with philosophers like Aristotle detailing various types of flawed arguments.

Why is it essential to recognize logical fallacies? Recognizing fallacies can help you make better decisions, strengthen your own arguments, and avoid being misled by faulty reasoning.

Can a logical fallacy be valid in some contexts? While the reasoning may be flawed, the underlying point someone is trying to make could still be valid. However, it's essential to separate the valid point from the fallacious argument.

Grasping the nuances of logical fallacies is more than just an academic exercise—it's a life skill.

In a world saturated with information, discerning sound arguments from flawed ones is invaluable. As you continue your journey in understanding and recognizing these fallacies, you're not only refining your ability to think critically but also empowering yourself to engage more constructively in discussions and debates.

Remember, pursuing clear, logical, critical thinking is a journey, not a destination. As you grow and learn, you'll become better equipped to navigate the complex landscape of ideas and arguments that surround us daily.

Related posts:

• Ad Hoc Fallacy (29 Examples + Other Names)
• Genetic Fallacy (28 Examples + Definition)
• Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy (29 Examples + Description)
• Hasty Generalization Fallacy (31 Examples + Similar Names)
• Appeal to Force Fallacy (Description + 9 Examples)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Jessie Ball duPont Library

Critical thinking skills, watch the fallacies.

• Need Research Help?
• Research Help

Although there are more than two dozen types and subtypes of logical fallacies, these are the most common forms that you may encounter in writing, argument, and daily life:

Example: Special education students should not be required to take standardized tests because such tests are meant for nonspecial education students.

Example: Two out of three patients who were given green tea before bedtime reported sleeping more soundly. Therefore, green tea may be used to treat insomnia.

• Sweeping generalizations  are related to the problem of hasty generalizations. In the former, though, the error consists in assuming that a particular conclusion drawn from a particular situation and context applies to all situations and contexts. For example, if I research a particular problem at a private performing arts high school in a rural community, I need to be careful not to assume that my findings will be generalizable to all high schools, including public high schools in an inner city setting.

Example: Professor Berger has published numerous articles in immunology. Therefore, she is an expert in complementary medicine.

Example: Drop-out rates increased the year after NCLB was passed. Therefore, NCLB is causing kids to drop out.

Example: Japanese carmakers must implement green production practices, or Japan‘s carbon footprint will hit crisis proportions by 2025.

In addition to claims of policy, false dilemma seems to be common in claims of value. For example, claims about abortion‘s morality (or immorality) presuppose an either-or about when "life" begins. Our earlier example about sustainability (―Unsustainable business practices are unethical.‖) similarly presupposes an either/or: business practices are either ethical or they are not, it claims, whereas a moral continuum is likelier to exist.

Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning

Hasty Generalization

Sweeping Generalization

Non Sequitur

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

False Dilemma

• << Previous: Abduction
• Next: Need Research Help? >>
• Last Updated: Jul 28, 2020 5:53 PM
• URL: https://library.sewanee.edu/critical_thinking

Research Tools

• Find Articles
• Find Research Guides
• Find Databases
• Ask a Librarian
• Learn Research Skills
• How-To Videos
• Borrow from Another Library (Sewanee ILL)
• Find Audio and Video
• Find Reserves
• Access Electronic Resources

Services for...

• College Students
• The School of Theology
• The School of Letters
• Community Members

Spaces & Places

• Center for Leadership
• Center for Speaking and Listening
• Center for Teaching
• Floor Maps & Locations
• Ralston Listening Library
• Study Spaces
• Tech Help Desk
• Writing Center

About the Library

• Where is the Library?
• Library Collections
• New Items & Themed Collections
• Library Policies
• Library Staff
• Friends of the Library

Jessie Ball duPont Library, University of the South

178 Georgia Avenue, Sewanee, TN 37383

931.598.1664

Critical Thinking - Writing Lab Tips and Strategies: Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies.

Fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments, arguments that may sound good but prove nothing.

Ad Hominem Argumen t :  Attacking the person instead of the argument.

Appeal to Closure :  The argument that the issue must be decided so that those involved can have "closure."

Appeal to Heaven : Arguing that one's position or action is right because God said so.  As Christians, we believe God has revealed his will through Scripture, but we can still fall into this fallacy if we attempt to justify ourselves apart from what the Bible says.  Even if we are being consistent with Scripture, we may still be accused of this fallacy.

Appeal to Pity : Urging an audience to “root for the underdog” regardless of the issues at hand.

Appeal to Tradition :  It's always been this way, it should continue to be this way.

Argument from Consequences : The fallacy of arguing that something cannot be true because if it were the consequences would be unacceptable.

Argument from Ignorance:  The fallacy that since we don’t know whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true).

 Argument from Inertia:  The argument to continue on as before because changing would be admitting that one is wrong and that one had sacrificed needlessly.

Argument from Motives:   The argument that someone must be wrong because their motives are wrong.  Also, the reverse: someone is right because their motives are right.

Argumentum ad Baculam:   Attempting to persuade through threats.  Also applies to indirect forms of threat.

Argumentum ex Silentio:   The fallacy that if sources remain silent or say nothing about a given subject or question this in itself proves something about the truth of the matter.

Bandwagon:   The fallacy of arguing that because "everyone" supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right.  

Begging the Question : Falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the same statement in different words.

Big Lie Technique:   Repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.

Blind Loyalty:   Arguing something is right solely because a respected leader or source says it is right. 

Blood is Thicker than Water:    Automatically regarding something as true because one is related to (or knows and likes, or is on the same team as) the individual involved. 

Bribery:  Persuading with gifts instead of logic.

The Complex Question : Demanding a direct answer to a question containing acceptable and unacceptable parts.  Example: "Yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"  "I never beat my--"  "Just answer me: Yes or no?"

Diminished Responsibility : The argument that one is less responsible for an action because one's judgment was altered.  Example:  "I was high, so I shouldn't be fined for speeding; it wasn't my fault."

Either-Or Reasoning:   Falsely offering only two possible alternatives even though a broad range of possible alternatives are available.

”E" for Effort:  Arguing that something must be right, valuable, or worthy of credit simply because someone has put so much sincere good-faith effort or even sacrifice and bloodshed into it.

Equivocation : Deliberately failing to define one's terms, or deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand.

Essentializing : A fallacy that proposes a person or thing “is what it is and that’s all that it is,” and at its core will always be what it is right now (E.g., "All ex-cons are criminals, and will still be criminals even if they live to be 100."). Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that something is a certain way "by nature," an empty claim that no amount of proof can refute.

False Analogy : Incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. 

Finish the Job:   Arguing that an action or standpoint may not be questioned or discussed because there is "a job to be done," falsely assuming all "jobs" are never to be questioned. 

Guilt by Association:  Trying to refute someone's arguments or actions by evoking the negative ethos of those with whom one associates.

The Half Truth  (also Card Stacking, Incomplete Information).Telling the truth but deliberately omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger picture and support a false conclusion.

I Wish I Had a Magic Wand:   Regretfully (and falsely) proclaiming oneself powerless to change a bad or objectionable situation because there is no alternative.

Just in Case : Basing one's argument on a far-fetched or imaginary worst-case scenario rather than on reality. Plays on fear rather than reason.

Lying with Statistics : Using true figures and numbers to “prove” unrelated claims.

MYOB   (Mind Your Own Business) Arbitrarily prohibiting any discussion of one's own standpoints or behavior, no matter how absurd, dangerous, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privacy around oneself and one's actions. 

Name-Calling:   Arguing that, simply because of who someone is, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections against his or her standpoint are automatically  racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. 

Non Sequitur : Offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand.

Overgeneralization:   Incorrectly applying one or two examples to all cases.

The Paralysis of Analysis : Arguing that since  all  data is never in, no legitimate decision can ever be made and any action should always be delayed until forced by circumstances. 

Playing on Emotions : Ignoring facts and calling on emotion alone.

Political Correctness   ("PC"): Proposing that the nature of a thing or situation can be changed simply by changing its name. 

Post Hoc Argument : Arguing that because something comes at the same time or just after something else, the first thing is caused by the second.

Red Herring : An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue.

Reductionism : Deceiving an audience by giving simple answers or slogans in response to complex questions, especially when appealing to less educated or unsophisticated audiences.

Reifying : The fallacy of treating imaginary categories as actual, material "things."

Sending the Wrong Message : Attacking a given statement or action, no matter how true, correct or necessary, because it will "send the wrong message." In effect, those who uses this fallacy are publicly confessing to fraud and admitting that the truth will destroy the fragile web of illusion that has been created by their lies.

Shifting the Burden of Proof: Challenging opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument.

Slippery Slope : The common fallacy that "one thing inevitably leads to another."

Snow Job :   "Proving” a claim by overwhelming an audience with mountains of irrelevant facts, numbers, documents, graphs and statistics that they cannot be expected to understand.

Straw Man : Setting up a phony version of an opponent's argument, and then proceeding to knock it down with a wave of the hand.

Taboo : Unilaterally declaring certain arguments, standpoints or actions to be not open to discussion.

Testimonial : When a standpoint or product is supported by a well-known or respected figure who is not an expert and who was probably well paid for the endorsement.

They're Not Like Us :  Arbitrarily disregarding a fact, argument, or objection because those involved "are not like us," or "don't think like us."

TINA  (There Is No Alternative): Squashing critical thought by announcing that there is no realistic alternative to a given standpoint, status or action, ruling any and all other options irrelevant and any further discussion is simply a waste of time.

Transfer : Falsely associating a famous person or thing with an unrelated standpoint.

Tu Quoque:  Defending a shaky or false standpoint or excusing one's own bad action by pointing out that one's opponent's acts or personal character are also open to question, or even worse.

We Have to Do  Something : Arguing that in moments of crisis one must do something,  anything , at once, even if it is an overreaction, is totally ineffective or makes the situation worse, rather than "just sitting there doing nothing." 

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire : Quickly drawing a conclusion and/or taking action without sufficient evidence.

For more in-depth discussion of these fallacies, refer to http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

Subject Guide

I'm trying to think critically, but I'm a frog

• << Previous: Home
• Last Updated: May 17, 2023 3:05 PM
• URL: https://libguides.grace.edu/CriticalThinking

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Two competing conceptions of fallacies are that they are false but popular beliefs and that they are deceptively bad arguments. These we may distinguish as the belief and argument conceptions of fallacies. Academic writers who have given the most attention to the subject of fallacies insist on, or at least prefer, the argument conception of fallacies, but the belief conception is prevalent in popular and non-scholarly discourse. As we shall see, there are yet other conceptions of what fallacies are, but the present inquiry focuses on the argument conception of fallacies.

Being able to detect and avoid fallacies has been viewed as a supplement to criteria of good reasoning. The knowledge of fallacies is needed to arm us against the most enticing missteps we might take with arguments—so thought not only Aristotle but also the early nineteenth century logicians Richard Whately and John Stuart Mill. But as the course of logical theory from the late nineteenth-century forward turned more and more to axiomatic systems and formal languages, the study of reasoning and natural language argumentation received much less attention, and hence developments in the study of fallacies almost came to a standstill. Until well past the middle of the twentieth century, discussions of fallacies were for the most part relegated to introductory level textbooks. It was only when philosophers realized the ill fit between formal logic, on the one hand, and natural language reasoning and argumentation, on the other, that the interest in fallacies has returned. Since the 1970s the utility of knowing about fallacies has been acknowledged (Johnson and Blair 1993), and the way in which fallacies are incorporated into theories of argumentation has been taken as a sign of a theory’s level of adequacy (Biro and Siegel 2007, van Eemeren 2010).

In modern fallacy studies it is common to distinguish formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are those readily seen to be instances of identifiable invalid logical forms such as undistributed middle and denying the antecedent. Although many of the informal fallacies are also invalid arguments, it is generally thought to be more profitable, from the points of view of both recognition and understanding, to bring their weaknesses to light through analyses that do not involve appeal to formal languages. For this reason it has become the practice to eschew the symbolic language of formal logic in the analysis of these fallacies; hence the term ‘informal fallacy’ has gained wide currency. In the following essay, which is in four parts, it is what is considered the informal-fallacy literature that will be reviewed. Part 1 is an introduction to the core fallacies as brought to us by the tradition of the textbooks. Part 2 reviews the history of the development of the conceptions of fallacies as it is found from Aristotle to Copi. Part 3 surveys some of the most recent innovative research on fallacies, and Part 4 considers some of the current research topics in fallacy theory.

1. The core fallacies

2.1 aristotle, 2.3 arnauld and nicole, 2.6 bentham, 2.7 whately, 3.1 renewed interest, 3.2 doubts about fallacies, 3.3 the informal logic approach to fallacies, 3.4 the formal approach to informal fallacies, 3.5 the epistemic approach to fallacies, 3.6 dialectical/dialogical approaches to fallacies, 4.1 the nature of fallacies, 4.2 the appearance condition, 4.3 teaching, other internet resources, related entries.

Irving Copi’s 1961 Introduction to Logic gives a brief explanation of eighteen informal fallacies. Although there is some variation in competing textbooks, Copi’s selection captured what for many was the traditional central, core fallacies. [ 1 ] In the main, these fallacies spring from two fountainheads: Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations and John Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). By way of introduction, a brief review of the core fallacies, especially as they appear in introductory level textbooks, will be given. Only very general definitions and illustrations of the fallacies can be given. This proviso is necessary first, because, the definitions (or identity conditions) of each of the fallacies is often a matter of contention and so no complete or final definition can be given in an introductory survey; secondly, some researchers wish that only plausible and realistic instances of each fallacy be used for illustration. This also is not possible at this stage. The advantage of the stock examples of fallacies is that they are designed to highlight what the mistake associated with each kind of fallacy is supposed to be. Additional details about some of the fallacies are found in Sections 2 and 3. As an initial working definition of the subject matter, we may take a fallacy to be an argument that seems to be better than it really is.

1. The fallacy of equivocation is an argument which exploits the ambiguity of a term or phrase which has occurred at least twice in an argument, such that on the first occurrence it has one meaning and on the second another meaning. A familiar example is:

The end of life is death. Happiness is the end of life. So, death is happiness.

‘The end of life’ first means ceasing to live, then it means purpose. That the same set of words is used twice conceals the fact that the two distinct meanings undermine the continuity of the reasoning, resulting in a non-sequitur .

2. The fallacy of amphiboly is, like the fallacy of equivocation, a fallacy of ambiguity; but here the ambiguity is due to indeterminate syntactic structure. In the argument:

The police were told to stop drinking on campus after midnight. So, now they are able to respond to emergencies much better than before

there are several interpretations that can be given to the premise because it is grammatically ambiguous. On one reading it can be taken to mean that it is the police who have been drinking and are now to stop it; this makes for a plausible argument. On another reading what is meant is that the police were told to stop others (e.g., students) from drinking after midnight. If that is the sense in which the premise is intended, then the argument can be said to be a fallacy because despite initial appearances, it affords no support for the conclusion.

3 & 4. The fallacies of composition and division occur when the properties of parts and composites are mistakenly thought to be transferable from one to the other. Consider the two sentences:

• Every member of the investigative team was an excellent researcher.
• It was an excellent investigative team.

Here it is ‘excellence’ that is the property in question. The fallacy of composition is the inference from (a) to (b) but it need not hold if members of the team cannot work cooperatively with each other. The reverse inference from (b) to (a)—the fallacy of division—may also fail if some essential members of the team have a supportive or administrative role rather than a research role.

5. The fallacy of begging the question ( petitio principii ) can occur in a number of ways. One of them is nicely illustrated with Whately’s (1875 III §13) example: “to allow everyman an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the Community, that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited, of expressing his sentiments.” This argument begs the question because the premise and conclusion are the very same proposition, albeit expressed in different words. It is a disguised instance of repetition which gives no reason for its apparent conclusion.

Another version of begging the question can occur in contexts of argumentation where there are unsettled questions about key terms. Suppose, for example, that everyone agrees that to murder someone requires doing something that is wrong, but not everyone agrees that capital punishment is a form of ‘murder’; some think it is justified killing. Then, should an arguer gives this argument:

Capital punishment requires an act of murdering human beings. So, capital punishment is wrong.

one could say that this is question-begging because in this context of argumentation, the arguer is smuggling in as settled a question that remains open. That is, if the premise is accepted without further justification, the arguer is assuming the answer to a controversial question without argument.

Neither of these versions of begging the question are faulted for their invalidity, so they are not charged with being non-sequitors like most of the core fallacies; they are, however, attempted proofs that do not transparently display their weakness. This consideration, plus its ancient lineage back to Aristotle, might explain begging the question’s persistent inclusion among fallacies. But, given our allegiance to the modern conception of logic as being solely concerned with the following-from relation, forms of begging the question should be thought of as epistemic rather than logical fallacies.

Some versions of begging the question are more involved and are called circular reasoning. They include more than one inference. Descartes illustrated this kind of fallacy with the example of our belief in the Bible being justified because it is the word of God, and our belief in God’s existence being justified because it is written in the Bible. [ 2 ] The two propositions lead back and forth to each other, in a circle, each having only the support of the other.

6. The fallacy known as complex question or many questions is usually explained as a fallacy associated with questioning. For example, in a context where a Yes or No answer must be given, the question, “Are you still a member of the Ku Klux Klan?” is a fallacy because either response implies that one has in the past been a member of the Klan, a proposition that may not have been established as true. Some say that this kind of mistake is not really a fallacy because to ask a question is not to make an argument.

7. There are a number of fallacies associated with causation, the most frequently discussed is post hoc ergo propter hoc , (after this, therefore because of this). This fallacy ascribes a causal relationship between two states or events on the basis of temporal succession. For example,

Unemployment decreased in the fourth quarter because the government eliminated the gasoline tax in the second quarter.

The decrease in unemployment that took place after the elimination of the tax may have been due to other causes; perhaps new industrial machinery or increased international demand for products. Other fallacies involve confusing the cause and the effect, and overlooking the possibility that two events are not directly related to each other but are both the effect of a third factor, a common cause. These fallacies are perhaps better understood as faults of explanation than faults of arguments.

8. The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi , or irrelevant conclusion, is indicative of misdirection in argumentation rather than a weak inference. The claim that Calgary is the fastest growing city in Canada, for example, is not defeated by a sound argument showing that it is not the biggest city in Canada. A variation of ignoratio elenchi , known under the name of the straw man fallacy, occurs when an opponent’s point of view is distorted in order to make it easier to refute. For example, in opposition to a proponent’s view that (a) industrialization is the cause of global warming, an opponent might substitute the proposition that (b) all ills that beset mankind are due to industrialization and then, having easily shown that (b) is false, leave the impression that (a), too, is false. Two things went wrong: the proponent does not hold (b), and even if she did, the falsity of (b) does not imply the falsity of (a).

There are a number of common fallacies that begin with the Latin prefix ‘ ad ’ (‘to’ or ‘toward’) and the most common of these will be described next.

9. The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them. (See also 2.4 below.)

10. The fallacy ad populum is similar to the ad verecundiam , the difference being that the source appealed to is popular opinion, or common knowledge, rather than a specified authority. So, for example:

These days everyone (except you) has a car and knows how to drive; So, you too should have a car and know how to drive.

Often in arguments like this the premises aren’t true, but even if they are generally true they may provide only scant support for their conclusions because that something is widely practised or believed is not compelling evidence that it is true or that it should be done. There are few subjects on which the general public can be said to hold authoritative opinions. Another version of the ad populum fallacy is known as “playing to the gallery” in which a speaker seeks acceptance for his view by arousing relevant prejudices and emotions in his audience in lieu of presenting it with good evidence.

11. The ad baculum fallacy is one of the most controversial because it is hard to see that it is a fallacy or even that it involves bad reasoning. Ad baculum means “appeal to the stick” and is generally taken to involve a threat of injury of harm to the person addressed. So, for example,

If you don’t join our demonstration against the expansion of the park, we will evict you from your apartment; So, you should join our demonstration against the expansion of the park.

Such threats do give us reasons to act and, unpleasant as the interlocutor may be, there seems to be no fallacy here. In labour disputes, and perhaps in international relations, using threats such as going on strike, or cutting off trade routes, are not normally considered fallacies, even though they do involve intimidation and the threat of harm. However, if we change to doxastic considerations, then the argument that you should believe that candidate \(X\) is the one best suited for public office because if you do not believe this you will be evicted from your apartment, certainly is a good instance of irrelevant evidence.

12. The fallacy ad misericordiam is a companion to the ad baculum fallacy: it occurs not when threats are out of place but when appeals for sympathy or pity are mistakenly thought to be evidence. To what extent our sympathy for others should influence our actions depends on many factors, including circumstances and our ethical views. However, sympathy alone is generally not evidence for believing any proposition. Hence,

You should believe that he is not guilty of embezzling those paintings; think of how much his family suffered during the Depression.

Ad misericordiam arguments, like ad baculum arguments, have their natural home in practical reasoning; it is when they are used in theoretical (doxastic) argumentation that the possibility of fallacy is more likely.

13. The ad hominem fallacy involves bringing negative aspects of an arguer, or their situation, to bear on the view they are advancing. There are three commonly recognized versions of the fallacy. The abusive ad hominem fallacy involves saying that someone’s view should not be accepted because they have some unfavorable property.

Thompson’s proposal for the wetlands may safely be rejected because last year she was arrested for hunting without a license.

The hunter Thompson, although she broke the law, may nevertheless have a very good plan for the wetlands.

Another, more subtle version of the fallacy is the circumstantial ad hominem in which, given the circumstances in which the arguer finds him or herself, it is alleged that their position is supported by self-interest rather than by good evidence. Hence, the scientific studies produced by industrialists to show that the levels of pollution at their factories are within the law may be undeservedly rejected because they are thought to be self-serving. Yet it is possible that the studies are sound: just because what someone says is in their self-interest, does not mean it should be rejected.

The third version of the ad hominem fallacy is the tu quoque . It involves not accepting a view or a recommendation because the espouser him- or herself does not follow it. Thus, if our neighbor advises us to exercise regularly and we reject her advice on the basis that she does not exercise regularly, we commit the tu quoque fallacy: the value of advice is not wholly dependent on the integrity of the advisor.

We may finish our survey of the core fallacies by considering just two more.

14. The fallacy of faulty analogy occurs when analogies are used as arguments or explanations and the similarities between the two things compared are too remote to support the conclusion.

If a child gets a new toy he or she will want to play with it; So, if a nation gets new weapons, it will want to use them.

In this example (due to Churchill 1986, 349) there is a great difference between using (playing with) toys and using (discharging) weapons. The former is done for amusement, the latter is done to inflict harm on others. Playing with toys is a benign activity that requires little justification; using weapons against others nations is something that is usually only done after extensive deliberation and as a last resort. Hence, there is too much of a difference between using toys and using weapons to conclude that a nation, if it acquires weapons, will want to use them as readily as children will want to play with their toys.

15. The fallacy of the slippery slope generally takes the form that from a given starting point one can by a series of incremental inferences arrive at an undesirable conclusion, and because of this unwanted result, the initial starting point should be rejected. The kinds of inferences involved in the step-by-step argument can be causal, as in:

You have decided not to go to college; If you don’t go to college, you won’t get a degree; If you don’t get a degree, you won’t get a good job; If you don’t get a good job, you won’t be able to enjoy life; But you should be able to enjoy life; So, you should go to college.

The weakness in this argument, the reason why it is a fallacy, lies in the second and third causal claims. The series of small steps that lead from an acceptable starting point to an unacceptable conclusion may also depend on vague terms rather than causal relations. Lack of clear boundaries is what enables the puzzling slippery slope arguments known as “the beard” and “the heap.” In the former, a person with a full beard eventually becomes beardless as hairs of the beard are removed one-by-one; but because the term ‘beard’ is vague it is unclear at which intermediate point we are to say that the man is now beardless. Hence, at each step in the argument until the final hair-plucking, we should continue to conclude that the man is bearded. In the second case, because ‘heap’ is vague, it is unclear at what point piling scattered stones together makes them a heap of stones: if it is not a heap to begin with, adding one more stone will not make it a heap, etc. In both these cases apparently good reasoning leads to a false conclusion.

Many other fallacies have been named and discussed, some of them quite different from the ones mentioned above, others interesting and novel variations of the above. Some of these will be mentioned in the review of historical and contemporary sources that follows.

2. History of Fallacy Theory

The history of the study of fallacies begins with Aristotle’s work, On Sophistical Refutations . It is among his earlier writings and the work appears to be a continuation of the Topics , his treatise on dialectical argumentation. Although his most extensive and theoretically detailed discussion of fallacies is in the Sophistical Refutations , Aristotle also discusses fallacies in the Prior Analytics and On Rhetoric . Here we will concentrate on summarizing the account given in the Sophistical Refutations . In that work, four things are worth noting: (a) the different conceptions of fallacy; (b) the basic concepts used to explain fallacies; (c) Aristotle’s explanation of why fallacies can be deceptive; and (d) his enumeration and classification of fallacies.

2.1.1 Definitions

At the beginning of Topics (I, i), Aristotle distinguishes several kinds of deductions (syllogisms). They are distinguished first on the basis of the status of their premises. (1) Those that begin from true and primary premises, or are owed to such, are demonstrations. (2) Those which have dialectical premises—propositions acceptable to most people, or to the wise—are dialectical deductions. (3) Deductions that start from premises which only appear to be dialectical, are fallacious deductions because of their starting points, as are (4) those “deductions” that do have dialectical premises but do not really necessitate their conclusions. Other fallacies mentioned and associated with demonstrations are (5) those which only appear to start from what is true and primary ( Top ., I, i 101a5). What this classification leaves out are (6) the arguments that do start from true and primary premises but then fail to necessitate their conclusions; two of these, begging the question and non-cause are discussed in Prior Analytics (II, 16, 17). It is the “fallacious deductions” characterized in (4), however, that come closest to the focus of the Sophistical Refutations . Nevertheless, in many of the examples given what stands out is that the premises are given as answers in dialogue and are to be maintained by the answerer, not necessarily that they are dialectical in the sense of being common opinions. This variation on dialectical deductions Aristotle calls examination arguments ( SR 2 165b4).

2.1.2 The basic concepts

There are three closely related concepts needed to understand sophistical refutations. By a deduction (a syllogism [ 3 ] ) Aristotle meant an argument which satisfies three conditions: it “is based on certain statements made in such a way as necessarily to cause the assertion of things other than those statements and as a result of those statements” ( SR 1 165a1–2). Thus an argument may fail to be a syllogism in three different ways. The premises may fail to necessitate the conclusion, the conclusion may be the same as one of the premises, and the conclusion may not be caused by (grounded in) the premises. The concept of a proof underlying Sophistical Refutations is similar to what is demanded of demonstrative knowledge in Posterior Analytics (I ii 71b20), viz., that the premises must be “true, primary, immediate, better known than, prior to, and causative of the conclusion,” except that the first three conditions do not apply to deductions in which the premises are obtained through questioning. A refutation , Aristotle says, is “a proof of the contradictory” ( SR 6, 168a37)—a proof of the proposition which is the contradictory of the thesis maintained by the answerer. In a context of someone, S , maintaining a thesis, T , a dialectical refutation will consist in asking questions of S , and then taking S ’s answers and using them as the premises of a proof via a deduction of not-T : this will be a refutation of T relative to the answerer ( SR 8 170a13). The concept of contradiction can be found in Categories : it is those contraries which are related such that “one opposite needs must be true, while the other must always be false” (13b2–3). A refutation will be sophistical if either the proof is only an apparent proof or the contradiction is only an apparent contradiction. Either way, according to Aristotle, there is a fallacy. Hence, the opening of his treatise: “Let us now treat of sophistical refutations, that is, arguments which appear to be refutations but are really fallacies and not refutations” ( SR 1 164a20).

2.1.3 The appearance condition

Aristotle observed that “reasoning and refutation are sometimes real and sometimes not, but appear to be real owing to men’s inexperience; for the inexperienced are like those who view things from a distance” ( SR , 1 164b25). The ideas here are first that there are arguments that appear to be better than they really are; and second that people inexperienced in arguments may mistake the appearance for the reality and thus be taken in by a bad argument or refutation. Apparent refutations are primarily explained in terms of apparent deductions: thus, with one exception, Aristotle’s fallacies are in the main a catalogue of bad deductions that appear to be good deductions. The exception is ignoratio elenchi in which, in one of its guises, the deduction contains no fallacy but the conclusion proved only appears to contradict the answerer’s thesis.

Aristotle devotes considerable space to explaining how the appearance condition may arise. At the outset he mentions the argument that turns upon names ( SR 1 165a6), saying that it is the most prolific and usual explanation: because there are more things than names, some names will have to denote more than one thing, thereby creating the possibility of ambiguous terms and expressions. That the ambiguous use of a term goes unnoticed allows the illusion that an argument is a real deduction. The explanation of how the false appearance can arise is in the similarity of words or expressions with different meanings, and the smallness of differences in meaning between some expressions ( SR 7 169a23–169b17).

2.1.4 List and classification

Aristotle discusses thirteen ways in which refutations can be sophistical and divides them into two groups. The first group, introduced in Chapter 4 of On Sophistical Refutations , includes those Aristotle considers dependent on language ( in dictione ), and the second group, introduced in Chapter 5, includes those characterized as not being dependent on language ( extra dictionem ). Chapter 6 reviews all the fallacies from the view point of failed refutations, and Chapter 7 explains how the appearance of correctness is made possible for each fallacy. Chapters 19–30 advise answerers on how to avoid being taken in by sophistical refutations.

The fallacies dependent on language are equivocation, amphiboly, combination of words, division of words, accent and form of expression. Of these the first two have survived pretty much as Aristotle thought of them. Equivocation results from the exploitation of a term’s ambiguity and amphiboly comes about through indefinite grammatical structure. The one has to do with semantical ambiguity, the other with syntactical ambiguity. However, the way that Aristotle thought of the combination and division fallacies differs significantly from modern treatments of composition and division. Aristotle’s fallacies are the combinations and divisions of words which alter meanings, e.g., “walk while sitting” vs. “walk-while-sitting,” (i.e., to have the ability to walk while seated vs. being able to walk and sit at the same time). For division, Aristotle gives the example of the number 5: it is 2 and 3. But 2 is even and 3 is odd, so 5 is even and odd. Double meaning is also possible with those words whose meanings depend on how they are pronounced, this is the fallacy of accent, but there were no accents in written Greek in Aristotle’s day; accordingly, this fallacy would be more likely in written work. What Aristotle had in mind is something similar to the double meanings that can be given to ‘unionized’ and ‘invalid’ depending on how they are pronounced. Finally, the fallacy that Aristotle calls form of expression exploits the kind of ambiguity made possible by what we have come to call category mistakes, in this case, fitting words to the wrong categories. Aristotle’s example is the word ‘flourishing’ which may appear to be a verb because of its ‘ing’ ending (as in ‘cutting’ or ‘running’) and so belongs to the category of actions, whereas it really belongs in the category of quality. Category confusion was, for Aristotle, the key cause of metaphysical mistakes.

There are seven kinds of sophistical refutation that can occur in the category of refutations not dependent on language: accident, secundum quid , consequent, non-cause, begging the question, ignoratio elenchi and many questions.

The fallacy of accident is the most elusive of the fallacies on Aristotle’s list. It turns on his distinction between two kinds of predication, unique properties and accidents ( Top . I 5). The fallacy is defined as occurring when “it is claimed that some attribute belongs similarly to the thing and to its accident” ( SR 5 166b28). What belongs to a thing are its unique properties which are counterpredicable (Smith 1997, 60), i.e., if \(A\) is an attribute of \(B\), \(B\) is an attribute of \(A\). However, attributes that are accidents are not counterpredicates and to treat them as such is false reasoning, and can lead to paradoxical results; for example, if it is a property of triangles that they are equal to two right angles, and a triangle is accidentally a first principle, it does not follow that all first principles have two right angles (see Schreiber 2001, ch. 7).

Aristotle considers the fallacy of consequent to be a special case of the fallacy of accident, observing that consequence is not convertible, i.e., “if \(A\) is, \(B\) necessarily is, men also fancy that, if \(B\) is, \(A\) necessarily is” ( SR 5 169b3). One of Aristotle’s examples is that it does not follow that “a man who is hot must be in a fever because a man who is in a fever is hot” ( SR 5 169b19). This fallacy is sometimes claimed as being an early statement of the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.

The fallacy of secundum quid comes about from failing to appreciate the distinction between using words absolutely and using them with qualification. Spruce trees, for example, are green with respect to their foliage (they are ‘green’ with qualification); it would be a mistake to infer that they are green absolutely because they have brown trunks and branches. It is because the difference between using words absolutely and with qualification can be minute that this fallacy is possible, thinks Aristotle.

Begging the question is explained as asking for the answer (the proposition) which one is supposed to prove, in order to avoid having to make a proof of it. Some subtlety is needed to bring about this fallacy such as a clever use of synonymy or an intermixing of particular and universal propositions ( Top . VIII, 13). If the fallacy succeeds the result is that there will be no deduction: begging the question and non-cause are directly prohibited by the second and third conditions respectively of being a deduction ( SR 6 168b23).

The fallacy of non-cause occurs in contexts of ad impossibile arguments when one of the assumed premises is superfluous for deducing the conclusion. The superfluous premise will then not be a factor in deducing the conclusion and it will be a mistake to infer that it is false since it is a non-cause of the impossibility. This is not the same fallacy mentioned by Aristotle in the Rhetoric (II 24) which is more akin to a fallacy of empirical causation and is better called false cause (see Woods and Hansen 2001).

Aristotle’s fallacy of many questions occurs when two questions are asked as if they are one proposition. A proposition is “a single predication about a single subject” ( SR 6 169a8). Thus with a single answer to two questions one has two premises for a refutation , and one of them may turn out to be idle, thus invalidating the deduction (it becomes a non-cause fallacy). Also possible is that extra-linguistic part-whole mistakes may happen when, for example, given that something is partly good and partly not-good, the double question is asked whether it is all good or all not-good? Either answer will lead to a contradiction (see Schreiber 2000, 156–59). Despite its name, this fallacy consists in the ensuing deduction, not in the question which merely triggers the fallacy.

On one interpretation ignoratio elenchi is considered to be Aristotle’s thirteenth fallacy, in which an otherwise successful deduction fails to end with the required contradictory of the answerer’s thesis. Seen this way, ignoratio elenchi is unlike all the other fallacies in that it is not an argument that fails to meet one of the criteria of a good deduction, but a genuine deduction that turns out to be irrelevant to the point at issue. On another reading, ignoratio elenchi is not a separate fallacy but an alternative to the language dependent / language independent way of classifying the other twelve fallacies: they all fail to meet, in one way or another, the requirements of a sound refutation.

[A] refutation is a contradiction of one and the same predicate, not of a name but of a thing, and not of a synonymous name but of an identical name, based on the given premises and following necessarily from them (the original point at issue not being included) in the same respect, manner and time. ( SR 5 167a23–27)

Each of the other twelve fallacies is analysed as failing to meet one of the conditions in this definition of refutation ( SR 6). Aristotle seems to favour this second reading, but it leaves the problem of explaining how refutations that miss their mark can seem like successful refutations. A possible explanation is that a failure to contradict a given thesis can be made explicit by adding the negation of the thesis as a last step of the deduction, thereby insuring the contradiction of the thesis, but only at the cost (by the last step) of introducing one of the other twelve fallacies in the deduction.

2.1.5 Different interpretations

I have given only the briefest possible explanation of Aristotle’s fallacies. To really understand them a much longer engagement with the original text and the secondary sources is necessary. The second chapter of Hamblin’s (1970) book is a useful introduction to the Sophistical Refutations , and a defence of the dialectical nature of the fallacies. Hamblin thinks that a dialectical framework is indispensable for an understanding of Aristotle’s fallacies and that part of the poverty of contemporary accounts of fallacies is due to a failure to understand their assumed dialectical setting. This approach to the fallacies is continued in contemporary research by some argumentation theorists, most notably Douglas Walton (1995) who also follows Aristotle in recognizing a number of different kinds of dialogues in which argumentation can occur; Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (2004) who combine dialectical and pragmatic insights with an ideal model of a critical discussion; and Jaakko Hintikka who analyses the Aristotelian fallacies as mistakes in question-dialogues (Hintikka 1987; Bachman 1995.) According to Hintikka (1997) it is an outright mistake to think of Aristotle’s fallacies primarily as mistaken inferences, either deductive or inductive. A non-dialogue oriented interpretation of Aristotle fallacies is found in Woods and Hansen (1997 and 2001) who argue that the fallacies (apparent deductions) are basic to apparent refutations, and that Aristotle’s interest in the fallacies extended beyond dialectical contests, as is shown by his interest in them in the Prior Analytics and the Rhetoric (II 24). What gives unity to Aristotle’s different fallacies on this view is not a dialogue structure but rather their dependence on the concepts of deduction and proof. The most thorough recent study of these questions is in Schreiber (2003), who emphasizes Aristotle’s concern with resolving (exposing) fallacies and argues that it is Aristotelian epistemology and metaphysics that is needed for a full understanding of the fallacies in the Sophistical Refutations .

Francis Bacon deserves a brief mention in the history of fallacy theory, not because he made any direct contribution to our knowledge of the fallacies but because of his attention to prejudice and bias in scientific investigation, and the effect they could have on our beliefs. He spoke of false idols (1620, aphorisms 40–44) as having the same relation to the interpretation of nature that fallacies have to logic. The idol of the tribe is human nature which distorts our view of the natural world (it is a false mirror). The idol of the cave is the peculiarity of each individual man, our different abilities and education that affect how we interpret nature. The idols of the theatre are the acquired false philosophies, systems and methods, both new and ancient, that rule men’s minds. These three idols all fall into the category of explanations of why we may misperceive the world. A fourth of Bacon’s idols, the idol of the market place, is the one that comes closest to the Aristotelian tradition as it points to language as the source of our mistaken ideas: “words plainly force and overrule the understanding, and throw all into confusion, and lead men away into numberless empty controversies and idle fancies” (1620, aphorism 43). Although Bacon identifies no particular fallacies in Aristotle’s sense, he opens the door to the possibility that there may be false assumptions associated with the investigation of the natural world. The view of The New Organon is that just as logic is the cure for fallacies, so will the true method of induction be a cure for the false idols.

Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole were the authors of Logic, or the Art of Thinking (1662), commonly known as the Port-Royal Logic. According to Benson Mates (1965, 214) it “is an outstanding early example of the ‘how to think straight’ genre.” The work includes chapters on sophisms, with the justification that “examples of mistakes to be avoided are often more striking than the examples to be imitated” (Bk. III, xix). The Port-Royal Logic does not continue Aristotle’s distinction between fallacies that are dependent on language and those that are not; instead there is a division between sophisms associated with scientific subjects (ibid.)—these are nearly all from the Sophistical Refutations —and those committed in everyday life and ordinary discourse (Bk III, xx). The division is not exclusive, with some of the sophisms fitting both classes.

The Port-Royal Logic includes eight of Aristotle’s original thirteen fallacies, several of them modified to fit the bent to natural philosophy rather than dialectical argumentation. Several kinds of causal errors are considered under the broad heading, non causa pro causa and they are illustrated with reference to scientific explanations that have assigned false causes for empirical phenomena. Also identified as a common fallacy of the human mind is post hoc, ergo propter hoc : “This happened following a certain thing, hence that thing must be its cause” (Bk. III, xix 3). Begging the questions is included and illustrated, interestingly, with examples drawn from Aristotelian science. Two new sophisms are included: one is imperfect enumeration, the error of overlooking an alternative, the other is a faulty (incomplete) induction, what we might call hasty generalization. Although the discussions here are brief, they mark the entry of inductive fallacies into the pool of present day recognized fallacies. Ignoratio elenchi retains its dialogical setting but is extended beyond the mere failure to contradict a thesis, “to attribut[ing] to our adversaries something remote from their views to gain an advantage over them, or to impute to them consequences we imagine can be drawn from their doctrines, although they disavow and deny them” (Bk. III, xix 1). The other Aristotelian fallacies included are accident, combination and division, secundum quid and ambiguity.

The sophisms of everyday life and ordinary discourse are eight in number and two of them, the sophisms of authority and manner, should be noticed. In these sophisms, external marks of speakers contribute to the persuasiveness of their arguments. Although authority is not to be doubted in church doctrines, in matters that God has left to the discernment of humans we can be led away from the truth by being too deferential. Here we find one of the earliest statements of the modern appeal to false authority: people are often persuaded by certain qualities that are irrelevant to the truth of the issue being discussed. Thus there are a number of people who unquestioningly believe those who are the oldest and most experienced, even in matters that depend neither on age nor experience, but only on mental insight (Bk. III, xx 6). To age and experience Arnauld and Nicole add noble birth as an unwarranted source of deference in matters intellectual (Bk. III, xx 7), and towards the end of their discussion they add the sophism of manner, cautioning that “grace, fluency, seriousness, moderation and gentleness” is not necessarily a mark of truth (Bk. III, xx 8). The authors seem to have the rhetorical flourishes of royal courtiers especially in mind.

It is John Locke who is credited with intentionally creating a class of ad -arguments, and inadvertently giving birth to the class of ad -fallacies. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), he identified three kinds of arguments, the ad verecundiam , ad ignorantiam , and ad hominem arguments, each of which he contrasted with ad judicium arguments which are arguments based on “the foundations of knowledge and probability” and are reliable routes to truth and knowledge. Locke did not speak of ad -arguments as fallacies—that was left to others to do later—but rather as kinds of arguments “that men, in their reasoning with others, do ordinarily make use of to prevail on their assent; or at least so to awe them as to silence their opposition.” (Bk IV, xvii, 19–22).

Two of the ad arguments have developed beyond how Locke originally conceived them. His characterization of the ad verecundiam is considered the locus classicus of appeal-to-authority arguments. When it is a fallacy it is either on the ground that authorities (experts) are fallible or for the reason that appealing to authority is an abandonment of an individual’s epistemic responsibility. It seems unlikely, however, that Locke thought we should never rely on the expertise and superior knowledge of others when engaged in knowledge-gathering and argumentation. This leads us to consider what kind of authority Locke might have had in mind. In addition to epistemic and legal (command) authority there is also what might be called social authority, demanding respect and deference from others due to one’s higher social standing, something much more a part of seventeenth-century society than it is a part of ours. The language that Locke used in connection with the ad verecundiam , words like ‘eminency’, ‘dignity’, ‘breach of modesty’, and ‘having too much pride’ suggests that what he had in mind was the kind of authority that demands respect for the social standing of sources rather than for their expertise; hence, by this kind of authority a person could be led to accept a conclusion because of their modesty or shame, more so than for the value of the argument (see Goodwin 1998, Hansen 2006). Hence, we understand Locke better when we translate ad verecundiam literally, as “appeal to modesty.”

The argumentum ad hominem , as Locke defined it, has subsequently developed into three different fallacies. His original description was that it was a way “to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions.” That is, to argue that an opponent’s view is inconsistent, logically or pragmatically, with other things he has said or to which he is committed. Locke’s observation was that such arguments do not advance us towards truth, but that they can serve to promote agreement or stall disagreement. To argue that way is not a fallacy but an acceptable mode of argumentation. Henry Johnstone (1952) thought it captured the essential character of philosophical argumentation. The modern descendants of the Lockean ad hominem are the abusive ad hominem which is an argument to the effect that a position should not be accepted because of some telling negative property of its espouser; the circumstantial ad hominem , an argument to the effect that someone’s position should be rejected because circumstances suggest that their view is the result of self-interested bias; and finally, the tu quoque ad hominem argument which attempts to deflect a criticism by pointing out that it applies equally to the accuser. Recent scholarship suggests that these post-Lockean kinds of ad hominem arguments are sometimes used fairly, and sometimes fallaciously; but none of them is what Locke described as the argumentum ad hominem .

Ad ignorantiam translates as “appeal to ignorance.” Locke’s characterization of this kind of argument is that it demands “the adversary to admit what they allege as a proof, or to assign a better.” The ignorance in question is comparative, it is not that the opponent has no evidence, it is that s/he has no better evidence. However, the inability of an opponent to produce a better argument is not sufficient reason to think the proponent’s argument must be accepted. Modern versions of this kind of argument take it as a fallacy to infer a proposition to be true because there is no evidence against it (see Krabbe, 1995).

The introduction and discussion of the ad -arguments appears almost as an afterthought in Locke’s Essay . It is found at the end of the chapter, “Of Reason,” in which Locke devotes considerable effort to criticizing syllogistic logic. Reasoning by syllogisms, he maintained, was neither necessary nor useful for knowledge. Locke clearly thought that the three ad -arguments were inferior to ad judicium arguments, but he never used the term ‘fallacy’ in connection with them, although he did use it in connection with errors of syllogistic reasoning.

Was Locke the first to discuss these kinds of arguments? Hamblin (1970, 161–62) and Nuchelmans (1993) trace the idea of ad hominem arguments back to Aristotle, and Locke’s remark that the name argumentum ad hominem was already known has been investigated by Finocchiaro (1974) who finds the term and the argument kind in Galileo’s writings more than a half-century before the Essay Concerning Human Understanding . And Arnauld and Nicole’s discussion of the sophism of authority, that “people speak the truth because they are of noble birth or wealthy or in high office,” which seems to be part of Locke’s ad verecundiam , was most likely known to him. Subsequently more ad -arguments were added to the four that Locke identified (see Watts, and Copi, below).

Isaac Watts in his Logick; or, The Right Use of Reason (1724), furthered the ad -argument tradition by adding three more arguments: argumentum ad fidem (appeal to faith), argumentum ad passiones (appeal to passion), and argumentum ad populum (a public appeal to passions). Like Locke, Watts does not consider these arguments as fallacies but as kinds of arguments. However, the Logick does consider sophisms and introduces “false cause” as an alternative name for non causa pro causa which here, as in the Port-Royal Logic, is understood as a fallacy associated with empirical causation. According to Watts it occurs whenever anyone assigns “the reasons of natural appearances, without sufficient experiments to prove them” (1796, Pt. III, 3 i 4). Another sophism included by Watts is imperfect enumeration or false induction, the mistake of generalizing on insufficient evidence. Also, the term ‘strawman fallacy’ may have its origins in Watts’s discussion of ignoratio elenchi : after having dressed up the opinions and sentiments of their adversaries as they please to make “images of straw”, disputers “triumph over their adversary as though they had utterly confuted his opinions” (1796, Pt. III 3 i 1).

Jeremy Bentham’s Handbook of Political Fallacies (1824) was written in the years leading up to the first Reform Bill (1832). His interest was in political argumentation, particularly in exposing the different means used by parliamentarians and law makers to defeat or delay reform legislation. Hence, it was not philosophy or science that interested him, but political debate. Fallacies he took to be arguments or topics that would through the use of deception produce erroneous beliefs in people (1824, 3). These tactics he (or his editor) divided into four classes: fallacies of authority, danger, delay and confusion. Bentham was aware of the developing ad -fallacies tradition since each of the thirty or so fallacies he described is also labelled as belonging either to the kind ad verecundiam (appeal to shame or modesty), ad odium (appeal to hate or contempt), ad metum (appeal to fear or threats), ad quietem (appeal to rest or inaction), ad judicium , and ad socordiam (appeal to postponement or delay). Most of Bentham’s fallacies have not become staples of fallacy theory but many of them show interesting insights into the motives and techniques of debaters (see e.g., Rudanko’s (2005, 2009) analyses of the ad socordiam ).

Bentham’s Handbook has not taken a central place in the history of fallacy studies (Hamblin 1970, 165–69); nevertheless, it is historically interesting in several respects. It discusses authority at length, identifying four conditions for reliable appeals to authority and maintaining that the failure of any one of them cancels the strength of the appeal. Fallacies of authority in political debate occur when authority “is employed in the place of such relevant arguments as might have been brought forward” (1824, 25). Bentham’s fear is that debaters will resort to “the authority” of traditional beliefs and principles instead of considering the advantages of the reform measures under discussion.

Under the heading “fallacies of danger” Bentham named a number of what he called vituperative fallacies—imputations of bad character, bad motive, inconsistency, and suspicious connections—which have as their common characteristic, “the endeavour to draw aside attention from the measure to the man , in such a way as to cause the latter’s badness to be imputed to the measure he supports, or his goodness to his opposition” (1824, 83). This characterization fits well with the way we have come to think of the ad hominem fallacy as a view disparaged by putting forth a negative characterization of its supporter or his circumstances.

Bentham places the fallacies in the immediate context of debate, identifying ways in which arguers frustrate the eventual resolution of disagreements by using insinuations of danger, delaying tactics, appeals to questionable authorities and, generally, confusing issues. Modern argumentation theorists who hold that any impediment to the successful completion of dialogical discussions is a fallacy, may find that their most immediate precursor was Bentham (see Grootendorst 1997).

Book III of Richard Whately’s Elements of Logic (1826) is devoted to giving an account of fallacies based on “logical principles,”. Whately was instrumental in the revival of interest in logic at the beginning of the nineteenth century and, being committed to deductivism, he maintained that only valid deductive inferences counted as reasoning. Thus, he took every fallacy to belong to either the class of deductive failures (logical fallacies) or the class of non-logical failures (material fallacies).

By ‘fallacy’ Whately meant “any unsound mode of arguing, which appears to demand our conviction, and to be decisive of the question at hand, when in fairness it is not”’ (Bk. III, intro.). The logical fallacies divide into the purely logical and the semi-logical fallacies. The purely logical fallacies are plain violations of syllogistic rules like undistributed middle and illicit process. The semi-logical fallacies mostly trade on ambiguous middle terms and are therefore also logical fallacies, but their detection requires extra-logical knowledge including that of the senses of terms [ 4 ] and knowledge of the subject matter (Bk. III, §2); they include, among others, the fallacies of ambiguity, and division and composition. The non-logical, material fallacies are also divided into two classes: fallacies with premises ‘unduly assumed,’ and fallacies of irrelevant conclusions. Begging the question fits under the heading of a non-logical, material fallacy in which a premise has been unduly assumed, and ignoratio elenchi is a non-logical, material fallacy in which an irrelevant conclusion has been reached. The ad -arguments are all placed under the last division as variants of ignoratio elenchi , but they are said to be fallacies only when they are used unfairly. Whately’s version of the ad hominem argument resembles Locke’s in that it is an ex concessis kind of argument: one that depends on the concessions of the person with whom one is arguing. From the concessions, one might prove that one’s opponent is ‘committed to p, ’ but an attempt to make it seem as if this constitutes a proof of the absolute (non-relative) proposition ‘ p ’ would be a fallacy. This kind of ad hominem fallacy can be seen as falling under the broader ignoratio elenchi category because what is proved is not what is needed.

The creation of the category of non-logical fallacies was not really a break with Aristotle as much as it was a break with what had become the Aristotelian tradition. Aristotle thought that some fallacies were due to unacceptable premises although these are not elaborated in Sophistical Refutations (see section 2.1.1 above). Whately’s creation of the category of non-logical fallacies solved the problem of what to do with begging the question which is not an invalid form of argument, and it also created a place in fallacy taxonomy for the ad -fallacies.

John Stuart Mill’s contribution to the study of fallacies is found in Book V of his comprehensive A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive , first published in 1843. It stands out most strikingly for placing the study of fallacies within his framework of inductive reasoning, a direct rejection of Whately’s deductivist approach to reasoning and fallacies. Mill held that only inductive reasoning counts as inferring and accordingly he introduces new categories as well as a new classification scheme for fallacies.

Mill drew a division between the moral and the intellectual causes of fallacies. The former are aspects of human nature such as biases and indifference to truth which incline us to make intellectual mistakes. These dispositions are not themselves fallacies. It is the intellectual errors, the actual taking of insufficient evidence as sufficient, that are fallacious. The various ways in which this can happen are what Mill took as the basis for classifying fallacies. “A catalogue of the varieties of evidence which are not real evidence,” he wrote, “is an enumeration of fallacies” (1891, Bk.V iii §1).

Mill divided the broad category of argument fallacies into two groups: those in which the evidence is distinctly conceived and those in which it is indistinctly conceived. Fallacies falling under evidence indistinctly conceived (Bk. V, vii) were further described as fallacies of confusion. These result from an indistinct conception of the evidence leading to a mistaking of its significance and thereby to an unsupported conclusion. Some of the traditional Aristotelian fallacies such as ambiguity, composition and division, petitio principii , and ignoratio elenchi , are placed in this category. Although Mill followed Whately closely in his exposition of the fallacies of confusion, he does not mention any ad -arguments in connection with ignoratio elenchi .

As for the category of fallacies of evidence distinctly conceived, it too is divided. The two sub-classes are fallacies of ratiocination (deduction) and fallacies of induction. The deductive fallacies (Bk.V, vi) are those that explicitly break a rule of the syllogism, such as the three-term rule. But also included are the conversion of universal affirmatives and particular negatives (“All PS” does not follow from “All SP,” and “Some P not S” does not follow from “Some S not P”). Also included in this category is the secundum quid fallacy.

The other sub-class of fallacies distinctly conceived bring out what is distinctive about Mill’s work on the fallacies: that it is the first extensive attempt to deal with fallacies of induction. He divided inductive fallacies into two further groups: fallacies of observation (V, iv) and fallacies of generalization (Bk. V, v). Fallacies of observation can occur either negatively or positively. Their negative occurrence consists in non-observation in which one has overlooked negatively relevant evidence. This is similar to what the Port-Royal Logic considered a faulty enumeration, and one of Mill’s examples is the continued faith that farmers put in the weather forecasts found in almanacs despite their long history of false predictions. Observation fallacies occur positively when the mistake is based on something that is seen wrongly, i.e., taken to be something that it is not. Such mal-observations occur when we mistake our inferences for facts, as in our inference that the sun rises and sets (Bk. V, iv, 5).

Fallacies of generalization, the other branch of inductive fallacies, result from mistakes in the inductive process which can happen in several ways. As one example, Mill pointed to making generalizations about what lies beyond our experience: we cannot infer that the laws that operate in remote parts of the universe are the same as those in our solar system (Bk. V, v, 2). Another example is mistaking empirical laws stating regularities for causal laws—his example was because women as a class have not hitherto equalled men as a class, they will never be able to do so (Bk. V, v, 4). Also placed in the category of fallacies of generalization is post hoc ergo propter hoc , which tends to single out a single cause when there are in reality many contributing causes (Bk. V, v, 5). Analogical arguments are identified as a false basis for generalizations; they are “at best only admissible as an inconclusive presumption, where real proof is unattainable” (Bk. V, v, 6).

Mill also included what he calls fallacies of inspection, or a priori fallacies (Bk. V, iii) in his survey of fallacies. These consist of non-inferentially held beliefs, so they fit the belief conception of fallacies rather than the argument conception. Among Mill’s examples of a priori fallacies are metaphysical assumptions such as that distinctions of language correspond to distinctions in nature, and that objects cannot affect each other at a distance. Even the belief in souls or ghosts is considered an a priori fallacy. Such beliefs will not withstand scrutiny, thought Mill, by the inductive method strictly applied.

A System of Logic is the most extensive work on fallacies since Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations . Mill’s examples are taken from a wide range of examples in science, politics, economics, religion and philosophy. His classificatory scheme is original and comprehensive. Frederick Rosen (2006) argues that Mill’s pre-occupation with the detection and prevention of fallacies is part of what motivates the celebrated second chapter of On Liberty . Despite these considerations, the Logic is not much referenced by fallacy theorists.

Irving Copi’s Introduction to Logic —an influential text book from the mid-twentieth century—defines a fallacy as “a form of argument that seems to be correct but which proves, upon examination, not to be so.” (1961, 52) The term ‘correct’ is sufficiently broad to allow for both deductive invalidity, inductive weakness, as well as some other kinds of argument failure. Of the eighteen informal fallacies Copi discusses, eleven can be traced back to the Aristotelian tradition, and the other seven to the burgeoning post-Lockean ad -fallacy tradition.

The first division in Copi’s classification is between formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are invalid inferences which “bear a superficial resemblance” to valid forms of inference, so these we may think of as deductive fallacies. They include affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, the fallacy of four terms, undistributed middle, and illicit major. Informal fallacies are not characterized as resembling formally valid arguments; they gain their allure some other way. One division of informal fallacies is the fallacies of relevance which are “errors in reasoning into which we may fall because of carelessness and inattention to our subject matter” (1961, 53). This large class of fallacies includes accident, converse accident, false cause, petitio principii , complex question, ignoratio elenchi , ad baculum , ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, ad ignorantiam , ad misericordiam , ad populum , and ad verecundiam . The other division of informal fallacies is called fallacies of ambiguity and it includes equivocation, amphiboly, accent, composition and division.

It seems that Copi took Whately’s category of semi-logical fallacies and moved them under a new heading of ‘informal fallacies,’ presumably for the reason that extra-logical knowledge is needed to uncover their invalidity. This has the result that the new wide category of informal fallacies is a mixed bag: some of them are at bottom logical failures (equivocation, composition, ad misericordiam ) and some are logically correct but frustrate proof (begging the question, ignoratio elenchi ). [ 5 ] Copi’s classification, unlike Whately’s which sought to make a distinction on logical grounds, may be seen as based on three ways that fallacies resemble good arguments: formal fallacies have invalid forms that resemble valid forms, fallacies of ambiguity resemble good arguments through the ambiguity of terms, and fallacies of relevance exploit psychological (non-logical) associations. Hence, we may think of Copi’s divisions as between logical, semantic and psychological fallacies.

Copi’s treatment of the fallacies is a fair overview of the traditional list of fallacies, albeit he did not pretend to do any more than give an introduction to existing fallacy-lore for beginning logic students. Hamblin (1970, ch. 1) criticized Copi’s work, along with that of several others, and gave it the pejorative name, “the standard treatment of fallacies.” His criticisms rang true with many of his readers, thereby provoking contempt for the traditional treatment of fallacies as well as stimulating research in what we may call the new, or post-Hamblin, era, of fallacy studies. Let us next consider some of these developments.

3. New approaches to fallacies

A common complaint since Whately’s Elements of Logic is that our theory and teaching of fallacies are in want of improvement—he thought they should be put on a more logical footing to overcome the loose and vague treatments others had proffered.

It is on Logical principles therefore that I propose to discuss the subject of Fallacies. … the generality of Logical writers have usually followed so opposite a plan. Whenever they have to treat of anything that is beyond the mere elements of Logic, they totally lay aside all reference to the principles they have been occupied in establishing and explaining, and have recourse to a loose, vague, and popular kind of language … [which is] … strangely incongruous in a professional Logical treatise. (1875, III, intro.)

Charles Hamblin’s 1970 book, Fallacies , revives Whately’s complaint. We may view Fallacies as the dividing line between traditional approaches to the study of fallacies and new, contemporary approaches. At the time of its publication it was the first book-length work devoted to fallacies in modern times. The work opens with a critique of the standard treatment of fallacies as it was found in mid-twentieth century textbooks; then, in subsequent chapters, it takes a historical turn reviewing Aristotle’s approach to fallacies and exploring the tradition it fostered (as in the previous section of this entry). Other historically-oriented chapters include one on the Indian tradition, and one on formal fallacies. Hamblin’s more positive contributions to fallacy studies are concentrated in the book’s later chapters on the concept of argument, formal dialectics, and equivocation.

What Hamblin meant by “the standard treatment of fallacies” was:

The typical or average account as it appears in the typical short chapter or appendix of the average modern textbook. And what we find in most cases, I think it should be admitted, is as debased, worn-out and dogmatic a treatment as could be imagined—incredibly tradition bound, yet lacking in logic and in historical sense alike, and almost without connection to anything else in modern Logic at all. (1970, 12)

Let us consider what came before Hamblin as the traditional approach to fallacies and what comes after him as new approaches. The new approaches (since the 1970’s) show a concern to overcome Hamblin’s criticisms, and they also vie with each to produce the most defensible alternative to the traditional approach. One thing that nearly all the new approaches have in common is that they reject what Hamblin presents as the nearly universally accepted definition of “fallacy” as an argument “that seems to be valid but is not so” (1970, 12). Although this definition of fallacy is not nearly as widely accepted as Hamblin intimated (see Hansen 2002), others have taken to calling it “the standard definition of fallacies” and for convenience we can refer to it as SDF. SDF has three necessary conditions: a fallacy (i) is an argument, (ii) that is invalid, and (iii) appears to be valid. These can be thought of as the argument condition, the invalidity condition and the appearance condition. All three conditions have been brought into question.

Maurice Finocchiaro continued Hamblin’s criticism of the modern textbook treatment of fallacies, observing that they contain very few examples of actual fallacies, leading him to doubt the validity of ‘fallacy’ as a genuine logical category. Although he allows that errors in reasoning are common in real life, he thinks that “types of logically incorrect arguments”—fallacies—are probably not common (1981, 113). For that reason Finocchiaro prefers to speak of fallacious arguments —by which he means arguments in which the conclusion fails to follow from the premises—rather than fallacies (1987, 133). He further distances himself from SDF by not considering the appearance condition.

Finocchiaro distinguishes six ways in which arguments can be fallacious. (1) Formal fallaciousness is simply the case where the conclusion does not follow validly from the premises; this type of error can be demonstrated by producing a suitable analogous counter-example in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. (2) Explanatory fallaciousness occurs when a specified conclusion follows with no more certainty from the given premises than does a rival conclusion; it occurs most often in the context of proposing explanatory hypotheses. (3) Presuppositional fallaciousness occurs in those cases where an argument depends on a false presupposition; this kind of fallaciousness is demonstrated by making a sound argument showing the presupposition to be false. (4) Positive fallaciousness occurs when the given premises, complemented by other propositions taken as true, are shown to support a conclusion inconsistent with the given conclusion. (5) Semantical fallaciousness results from the ambiguity of terms; the conclusion will follow if the sense given to the term in the premises makes the premises false, but if the other sense is ascribed to the term, making the premises true, the conclusion does not follow (it becomes an instance of formal fallaciousness). (6) Finally, Finocchiaro singles out persuasive fallaciousness , in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises because it is the same as one of the premises. As a test of completeness of this six-fold division of fallaciousness, Finocchiaro (1987) observes that it is adequate to classify all the kinds of errors which Galileo found in the arguments of the defenders of the geocentric view of the solar system.

Gerald Massey (1981) has voiced a strong objection to fallacy theory and the teaching of fallacies. He argues that there is no theory of invalidity—no systematic way to show that an argument is invalid other than to show that it has true premises and a false conclusion (1981, 164). Hence, there is an asymmetry between proving arguments valid and proving them invalid: they are valid if they can be shown to be an instance of a valid form, but they are not proved invalid by showing that they are an instance of an invalid form, because both valid and invalid arguments instantiate invalid forms. Thus, showing that a natural language argument is an instance of an invalid form does not preclude the possibility that it is also an instance of a valid form, and therefore valid. Since upholders of SDF maintain that fallacies are invalid arguments, Massey’s asymmetry thesis has the consequence that no argument can be convicted of being a fallacy on logical grounds. [ 6 ]

The informal logic approach to fallacies is taken in Johnson and Blair’s Logical Self-Defence , a textbook first published in 1977. It was prompted in part by Hamblin’s indictment of the standard treatment and it further develops an initiative taken by Kahane (1971) to develop university courses that were geared to everyday reasoning. Johnson and Blair’s emphasis is on arming students to defend themselves against fallacies in everyday discourse, and a fundamental innovation is in their conception of a good argument. In place of a sound argument—a deductively valid argument with true premises—Johnson and Blair posit an alternative ideal of a cogent argument , one whose premises are acceptable, relevant to and sufficient for its conclusion. Acceptability replaces truth as a premise requirement, and the validity condition is split in to two different conditions, premise relevance and premise sufficiency. Acceptability is defined relative to audiences—the ones for whom arguments are intended—but the other basic concepts, relevance and sufficiency, although illustrated by examples, remain as intuitive, undefined concepts (see Tindale, 2007). Premise sufficiency (strength) is akin to probability in that it is a matter of degree but Johnson and Blair do not pursue giving it numerical expression.

The three criteria of a cogent argument, individually necessary and jointly sufficient, lead to a conception of fallacy as “any argument that violates one of the criteria of good argument … and is committed frequently in argumentative discourse” (1993, 317–18). This shares only one condition with SDF: that a fallacy is an argument. (Deductive) validity is replaced with the broader concept sufficiency, and the appearance condition is not included. Johnson (1987) argued that the appearance condition makes the occurrence of fallacies too subjective since how things appear may vary from perceiver to perceiver, and it should therefore be replaced by a frequency requirement. To be a fallacy, a mistake must occur with sufficient frequency to be worth our attention.

The adoption of the concept of a cogent argument as an ideal has several consequences. The category of fallacies with problematic premises (reminiscent of Whately’s “premises unduly assumed”) shows a concern with argument evaluation over and beyond logical or inference evaluation, drawing the informal logic approach away from purely logical concerns towards an epistemic conception of fallacies. Having both sufficiency and relevance as criteria (instead of the single validity criterion) has the benefit of allowing the making of nuanced judgments about the level of premise support: for example, we might say that an argument’s premises, although insufficient, are nevertheless positively relevant to the conclusion. Irrelevant premise fallacies are those with no premise support at all, whereas insufficient premise fallacies are those in which there is some support, but not enough of it. The informal logicians’ conception of fallacies is meant to be broader and more suitable to natural language argumentation than would be a conception tied only to deductive invalidity.

Johnson and Blair concern themselves exclusively with informal fallacies. Many of the familiar Aristotelian fallacies that are part of the standard treatment are missing from their inventory (e.g., accident, composition and division) and the ones retained find themselves in new categories: begging the question and ambiguity are together under the heading of Problematic Premise; appeals to authority and popularity are placed under the heading of Hasty Conclusion fallacies; ad hominem is among the fallacies that belong in the third category, Fallacies of Irrelevant Reason. This new list of fallacies has a different bent than many earlier lists, being more geared to deal with arguments in popular, everyday communication than philosophical or scientific discourse; this is evident both by the omission of some of the traditional fallacies as well as by the introduction of new ones, such as dubious assumption, two wrongs, slippery slope, and faulty analogy.

The kinds of mistakes one can make in reasoning are generally thought to be beyond enumeration and, hence, it has been maintained that there can be no complete stock of fallacies that will guard against every kind of mistake. Johnson and Blair’s approach is responsive to this problem in that it allows the names of the classes of fallacies — ‘unacceptable premise,’ ‘irrelevant reason’ and ‘hasty conclusion’ — to stand for fallacies themselves, fallacies broad-in-scope; i.e., to serve “both as general principles of organization, and as back-ups to fill in any gaps between specific labels belonging within each genus” (1993, 52). Hence, any violation of one of the criteria of a cogent argument can be considered a fallacy.

In addition to this alternative theoretical approach to fallacies built on the three criteria of a cogent argument—an approach also taken up by others [ 7 ] —informal logic’s contribution to fallacy studies lies in its attempts to provide better analyses of fallacies, a programme pursued by a large number of researchers, including Govier (1982) on the slippery slope, Wreen (1989) on the ad baculum , Walton (1991) on begging the question, Brinton (1995) on the ad hominem , Freeman (1995) on the appeal to popularity, and Pinto (1995) on post hoc ergo propter hoc .

John Woods also despairs of the standard treatment but he sees in it something of importance; namely that the fallacies most often reviewed in introductory level logic textbooks “are a kind of caricature of their associated improprieties, which lie deeply imbedded in human practice” (Woods 1992, 25). The fallacies are then behavioural symptoms of kinds of irrationality to which humans are highly susceptible, and that makes them an important subject for study because they say something about human nature. Therefore, the problem with the standard treatment, according to Woods, is not that it is a misdirected research programme, but rather that it has been poorly carried out, partly because logicians have failed to appreciate that a multi-logical approach is necessary to understand the variety of fallacies. This idea, pursued jointly by Woods and Douglas Walton (1989), is that, for many of the fallacies standard formal logic is inadequate to uncover the unique kind of logical mistakes in question—it is too coarse conceptually to reveal the unique character of many of the fallacies. To get a satisfactory analysis of each of the fallacies they must be matched with a fitting logical system, one that has the facility to uncover the particular logical weakness in question. Inductive logic can be employed for analysis of hasty generalization and post hoc ergo propter hoc ; relatedness logic is appropriate for ignoratio elenchi ; plausible reasoning theory for the ad verecundiam , and dialectical game theory for begging the question and many questions. Woods (1992, 43) refers to this approach to studying the fallacies as methodological pluralism. Thus, like the informal logicians, there is here an interest in getting the analyses of each of the fallacies right, but the Woods and Walton approach involves embracing formal methods, not putting them aside.

Woods (2013) has continued his research on fallacies, most recently considering them in the context of what he calls a naturalized logic (modelled on Quine’s naturalized epistemology). The main point of this naturalizing move is that a theory of reasoning should take into account the abilities and motivations of reasoners. Past work on the fallacies has identified them as failing to satisfy the rules of either deductive or inductive logic, but Woods now wants to consider the core fallacies in light of what he calls third-way reasoning (comparable to non-monotonic reasoning), an account of the cognitive practices that closely resemble our common inferential practices. From the perspective of third-way reasoning the “rules” implicit in the fallacies present themselves as heuristic directives to reasoners rather than as fallacies; hence, it may be that learning from feedback (having errors corrected) is less trouble than learning the rules to avoid fallacies in the first place (Woods 2013, p. 215). Woods illustrates his point by recalling many of the fallacies he originally identified in his 1992 paper, and subjecting them to this revised model of analysis thereby overturning the view that these types of argument are always to be spurned.

SDF may be seen as closely tied to the logical approach to fallacies—the fault in arguments it singles out is their deductive invalidity. But this conception of fallacies turns out to be inadequate to cover the variety of the core fallacies in two ways: it is too narrow because it excludes begging the question which is not invalid, and it is too wide because it condemns good but non-deductive arguments as fallacies (given that they also satisfy the appearance condition) because they are invalid. Even if we replace the invalidity condition in SDF with some less stringent standard of logical weakness which could overcome the “too wide” problem, it would still leave the difficulty of accounting for the fallacy of begging the question unsolved.

Siegel and Biro (1992, 1995) hold an epistemic account of fallacies, contrasting their view with dialectical/rhetorical approaches, because matters extraneous to arguments, such as being a practice that leads to false beliefs or not being persuasive, are not in their view a sufficient condition to make an argument a fallacy. They take the position that “it is a conceptual truth about arguments that their central … purpose is to provide a bridge from known truths or justified beliefs to as yet unknown … truths or as yet unjustified beliefs” (1992, 92). Only arguments that are “epistemically serious” can accomplish this; that is, only arguments that satisfy the extra-formal requirement that premises are knowable independently of their conclusions, and are more acceptable epistemically than their conclusions, can fulfill this function. A purely logical approach to argument will not capture this requirement because arguments of the same valid form, but with different contents, may or may not be epistemically serious, depending on whether the premises are epistemically acceptable relative to the conclusion.

Modifying Biro’s (1977, 265–66) examples we can demonstrate how the requirement of epistemic seriousness plays out with begging the question. Consider these two arguments:

All men are mortal; Obama is a man; So, Obama is mortal.

All members of the committee are old Etonians; Fortesque is a member of the committee; Fortesque is an old Etonian.

In the first argument the premises are knowable independently of the conclusion. The major premise can be deduced from other universal premises about animals, and the minor premise, unlike the conclusion which must be inferred, can be known by observation. Hence, this argument does not beg the question. However, in the second argument (due to Biro, 1977) given the minor premise, the major cannot be known to be true unless the conclusion is known to be true. Consequently, on the epistemic approach to fallacies taken by Biro and Siegel, the second argument, despite the fact that it is valid, is non-serious, it begs the question, and it is a fallacy. If there was some independent way of knowing whether the major premise was true, such as that it was a bylaw that only old Etonians could be committee members, the argument would be a serious one, and not beg the question.

Biro and Siegel’s epistemic account of fallacies is distinguishable in at least three ways. First, it insists that the function of arguments is epistemic, and therefore anything that counts as a fallacy must be an epistemic fault, a breaking of a rule of epistemic justification. But since logical faults are also epistemic faults, the epistemic approach to fallacies will include logical fallacies, although these must also be explicable in terms of epistemic seriousness. Second, since the epistemological approach does not insist that all justification must be deductive, it allows the possibility of their being fallacies (as well as good arguments) by non-deductive standards, something precluded by SDF. Finally, we notice that the appearance condition is not considered a factor in this discussion of fallacies.

Ulrike Hahn and Mike Oaksford (2006a, 2006b) see themselves as contributing to the epistemic approach to fallacy analysis by developing a probabilistic analysis of the fallacies. It is part of their programme for a normative theory of natural language argumentation. They are motivated by what they perceive as the shortcomings in other approaches. The logical (deductive) approach falls short in that it simply divides arguments into valid and invalid arguments thereby failing to appreciate that natural language arguments come in various degrees of strength. The alternative approaches to fallacies, given by procedural (dialectical) and consensual accounts, they criticize on the basis that they fail to address the central problem raised by the fallacies: that of the strength of the reason-claim complex. In Hahn and Oaksford’s view the strength or weakness of the classical fallacies (they are concerned mostly with the post-Aristotelian ones) is not a result of their structure or their context of use. It is instead a matter of the relationship between the evidence and the claim (the contents of the premises and the conclusion). Evaluation of this relationship is thought to be best captured by a probabilistic Bayesian account; accordingly, they adapt Bayes’ theorem to arguments evaluation with the proviso that the probabilities are subjective degrees of belief, not frequencies. “An argument’s strength,” they write, “is a function of an individual’s initial level of belief in the claim, the availability and observation of confirmatory (or disconfirmatory) evidence, and the existence and perceived strength of competing hypotheses” (Corner, et al. 1145). With Korb (2003) they view a fallacy as an argument with a low probability on the Bayesian model.

Since the variance in input probabilities will result in a range of outputs in argument strength, this probabilistic approach has the potential to assign argument strengths anywhere between 0 and 1, thereby allowing that different tokens of one argument type can vary greatly in strength, i.e., some will be fallacies and others not. Also, and this seems to concur with our experience, different arguers may disagree on the strength of the same arguments since they can differ in the assignments of the initial probabilities. Hahn and Oaksford also claim as advantages for their normative theory that it gives guidance for persuasion since it takes into account the initial beliefs of audiences. Moreover, their approach contributes to the study of belief change; that is, to what extent our confidence in the conclusion changes with the availability of new evidence.

Some of the most active new researchers on fallacies take a dialectical and/or dialogical approach. This can be traced back to Hamblin (1970, ch. 8) and Lorenzen’s (1969) dialogue theory. The panacea for fallacies that Whately recommended was more logic; Hamblin, however, proposed a shift from the logical to the dialectical perspective.

[W]e need to extend the bounds of Formal Logic; to include features of dialectical contexts within which arguments are put forward. To begin with, there are criteria of validity of argument that are additional to formal ones: for example, those that serve to proscribe question-begging. To go on with, there are prevalent but false conceptions of the rules of dialogue, which are capable of making certain argumentative moves seem satisfactory and unobjectionable when, in fact, they conceal and facilitate dialectical malpractice. (Hamblin 1970, 254)

The proposal here is to shift the study of fallacies from the contexts of arguments to the contexts of dialogues (argumentation), formulate rules for reasonable dialogue activity, and then connect fallacies to failures of rule-following. Barth and Martens’s paper (1977), which studied the argumentum ad hominem by extending Lorenzen’s dialogue tableaux method to include the definitions of the concepts “line of attack” and “winning strategy,” leads to a conception of fallacies as either failures to meet one of the necessary conditions of rational dialogical argumentation, or failures to satisfy sufficient conditions as specified by production rules of the dialogical method (1977, 96).

The Barth and Martens paper is a bridge between the earlier (quasi-) formal and subsequent informal dialectical theories, and is explicitly acknowledged as a major influence by the Pragma-dialectical theory, the brainchild of Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (1984). Rather than beginning from a logical or epistemological perspective they start with the role of argumentation in overcoming interpersonal disagreements. The Pragma-dialecticians propose that inter-personal argumentation can be analysed as two-party-discussions having four analytical stages: a confrontation stage in which the participants become aware of the content of their disagreement; an opening stage in which the parties agree (most likely implicitly) to shared starting points and a set of rules to govern the ensuing discussion; an argumentation stage wherein arguments and doubts about arguments are expressed and recognized; and a final stage in which a decision about the initial disagreement is made, if possible, based on what happened in the argumentation stage.

The Pragma-dialectical theory stipulates a normative ideal of a critical discussion which serves both as a guide to the reconstruction of natural language argumentation, as well as a standard for the evaluation of the analysed product of reconstruction. A set of ten rules has been proposed as constitutive of the critical-discussion ideal, and the proponents of the theory believe that rational arguers would accept them. If followed by both parties to the disagreement, the rules constrain the argumentation decision procedure such that any resolution reached will be deemed reasonable, and “every violation of any of the rules of the discussion procedure for conducting a critical discussion” will be a fallacy (2004, 175). The rules range over all the four stages of argumentation: at the confrontation stage there is a rule which says one may not prevent the other party from expressing their view; for the argumentation stage there is a rule which requires argumentation to be logically strong and in accord with one or another of three general argumentation schemes; at the closing stage there is a rule that the participants themselves are to decide which party was successful based on the quality of the argumentation they have made: if the proponent carries the day, the opponent should acknowledge it, and vice versa .

The Pragma-dialectical theory proposes that each of the core fallacies can be assigned a place as a violation of one of the rules of a critical discussion. For example, the ad baculum fallacy is a form of intimidation that violates the rule that one may not attempt to prevent one’s discussion partner from expressing their views; equivocation is a violation of the rule that formulations in arguments must be clear and unambiguous; post hoc ergo propter hoc violates the rule that arguments must be instances of schemes correctly applied. Moreover, on this theory, since any rule violation is to count as a fallacy this allows for the possibility that there may be hitherto unrecognized “new fallacies.” Among those proposed are declaring a standpoint sacrosanct because that breaks the rule against the freedom to criticize points of view, and evading the burden of proof which breaks the rule that you must defend your standpoint if asked to do so (see van Eemeren 2010, 194).

Clearly not all the rules of critical discussions apply directly to arguments. Some govern other goal-frustrating moves which arguers can make in the course of settling a difference of opinion, such as mis-allocating the burden of proof, asking irrelevant questions, suppressing a point of view, or failing to clarify the meaning of one’s argumentation. In short, the Pragma-dialectical rules of a critical discussion are not just rules of logic or epistemology, but rules of conduct for rational discussants, making the theory more like a moral code than a set of logical principles. Accordingly, this approach to fallacies rejects all three of the necessary conditions of SDF: a fallacy need not be an argument, thus the invalidity condition will not apply either, and the appearance condition is excluded because of its subjective character (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004, 175).

The Pragma-dialectical analysis of fallacies as rule-breakings in a procedure for overcoming disagreements has recently been expanded to take account of the rhetorical dimension of argumentation. Pragma-dialectics takes the rhetorical dimension to stem from an arguer’s wish to have their view accepted which leads dialoguers to engage in strategic maneuvering vis-à-vis their dialogue partners. However, this desire must be put in balance with the dialectical requirement of being reasonable; that is, staying within the bounds of the normative demands of critical discussions. The ways of strategic maneuvering identified are basically three: topic selection, audience orientation, and the selection of presentational devices, and these can be effectively deployed at each stage of argumentation (Van Eemeren 2010, 94). “All derailments of strategic maneuvering are fallacies,” writes van Eemeren (2010, 198), “in the sense that they violate one or more of the rules for critical discussion and all fallacies can be viewed as derailments of strategic maneuvering.” This means that all fallacies are ultimately attributable to the rhetorical dimension of argumentation since, in this model, strategic maneuvering is the entry of rhetoric into argumentation discussions. “Because each fallacy has, in principle, sound counterparts that are manifestations of the same mode of strategic maneuvering” it may not appear to be a fallacy and it “may pass unnoticed” (Van Eemeren 2010, 199). Nevertheless, Pragma-dialectics prefers to keep the appearance condition outside the definition of ‘fallacy’, treating the seeming goodness of fallacies as a sometime co-incidental property, rather than an essential one.

Argumentation evaluation on the Pragma-dialectical approach is done with an eye to a single ideal model of argumentation. This approach has been challenged by Douglas Walton who has written more about fallacies and fallacy theory than anyone else. He has published individual monographs on many of the well-known fallacies, among them, Begging the Question (1991), Slippery Slope Arguments (1992), Ad Hominem Arguments (1998), and a comprehensive work on fallacy theory, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy (1995). Over the years his views have evolved. He has referred to his theory as “the Pragmatic theory,” and like the Pragma-dialectical theory it has a dialectical/dialogical basis; however, Walton envisions a number of distinct normative dialectical frameworks (persuasion dialogue, inquiry dialogue, negotiation dialogue, etc.) rather than the single model of a critical discussion proposed by Pragma-dialectics. Postulating different kinds of dialogues with different starting points and different goals, thinks Walton, will bring argumentation into closer contact with argumentation reality. At one point Walton had the idea that fallacies happened when there was an illicit shift from one kind of a dialogue to another (1995, 118–23), for example, using arguments appropriate for a negotiation dialogue in a persuasion dialogue, but more recently he has turned to other ways of explicating fallacies.

Although Walton recognizes the class of formal fallacies, his main interest is in informal fallacies, especially the ones associated with argumentation schemes. The idea of an argumentation scheme is central to Walton’s theory. Schemes are patterns of commonly used kinds of defeasible reasoning/argumentation such as appeals to expert opinion and ad hominem arguments. Schemes do not identify fallacies but rather argument kinds that are sometimes used fairly, and, other times, fallaciously. With each kind of scheme is associated a set of critical questions which guide us in deciding whether a given use of an argument is correct, weak or fallacious. So, if we consider:

\(E\) is an expert in subject area \(S\); \(E\) asserts \(p\) based on \(E\)’s knowledge of \(S\); So, \(p\).

to be the scheme for the appeal-to-expertise kind of argument, [ 8 ] then there will be a question for each premise: Is \(E\) really an expert in \(S\)? Did \(E\) say \(p\) when s/he was acting in her/his professional capacity? (… or did s/he blurt it out while drunk at an association party?). If the answer to both questions is Yes, then the argument creates a presumption for the conclusion—but not a guarantee, for the reasoning is defeasible: other information may come to light that will override the presumption. If one of the questions cannot be answered clearly this is an indication that the argument is weak, and answering No to either of the two questions cancels the presumption for the conclusion, i.e., makes the argument into a bad argument from expert opinion. If the bad argument has “a semblance of correctness about it in [the] context, and poses a serious obstacle to the realization of the goal of the dialog,” then it is a fallacy (2011, 380). [ 9 ]

The definition of fallacy Walton proposes (1995, 255) has five parts. A fallacy:

• an argument (or at least something that purports to be an argument) that
• falls short of some standard of correctness;
• is used in a context of dialogue;
• has a semblance of correctness about it; and
• poses a serious problem to the realization of the goal of the dialogue.

Here we find that Walton has relaxed two of the necessary conditions of SDF. Purporting to be an argument is enough (it doesn’t really have to be an argument), while falling short of a standard (one that will vary with the kind of dialogue under consideration) replaces the invalidity condition. However, the appearance condition, here expressed as fallacies having a semblance of correctness about them, remains in full force. The two extra conditions added to fallacy are that they occur only in contexts of dialogue and that they frustrate the realization of the goal of the kind of dialogue in which they occur. In insisting on this dialogical dimension, Walton is in full sympathy with those who think that fallacies can only be rightly analysed within a dialectical framework similar to the ones Aristotle originally studied, and later better defined by Hamblin and Lorenzen. Walton volunteers a shorter version of the definition of a fallacy as “a deceptively bad argument that impedes the progress of a dialogue” (1995, 256).

Walton divides fallacies into two kinds: paralogisms and sophisms. A paralogism is “the type of fallacy in which an error of reasoning is typically committed by failing to meet some necessary requirement of an argumentation scheme” whereas “the sophism type of fallacy is a sophistical tactic used to try to unfairly get the best of a speech partner in an exchange of arguments” (2010, 171; see also 1995, 254). Paralogisms are instances of identifiable argumentation schemes, but sophisms are not. The latter are associated more with infringing a reasonable expectation of dialogue than with failing some standard of argument, (2011, 385; 2010, 175). A further distinction is drawn between arguments used intentionally to deceive and arguments that merely break a maxim of argumentation unintentionally. The former count as fallacies; the latter, less condemnable, are blunders (1995, 235).

Among the informal paralogisms Walton includes: ad hominem , ad populum , ad misericordiam , ad ignorantiam , ad verecundiam , slippery slope, false cause, straw man, argument from consequences, faulty analogy, composition and division. In the category of sophisms he places ad baculum , complex question, begging the question, hasty generalization, ignoratio elenchi , equivocation, amphiboly, accent, and secundum quid . He also has a class of formal fallacies very much the same as those identified by Whately and Copi. The largest class in Walton’s classification is the one associated with argumentation schemes and ad -arguments, and these are the ones that he considers to be the most central fallacies. Nearly all the Aristotelian fallacies included find themselves relegated to the less studied categories of sophisms. Taking a long look at the history of fallacies, then, we find that the Aristotelian fallacies are no longer of central importance. They have been replaced by the fallacies associated with the ad -arguments.

Another recent approach comes from virtue argumentation theory (modelled on virtue epistemology). Virtue argumentation theory is characterized by a distinct set of virtues thought to be essential to good argumentation: willingness to engage in argumentation, willingness to listen to others and willingness to modify one’s own position (see, e.g., Cohen 2009). These may be supplemented with epistemic virtues and even in some cases moral virtues. Although virtues and vices are dispositions of arguers and fallacies are arguments, it is claimed that good argumentation generally results from the influence of argumentation virtues and bad argumentation (including the fallacies) arise because of the vices of arguers.

Taking the Aristotelian view that virtues are a mean between opposite kinds of vices, fallacious arguments can be seen as resulting from arguers moving in one or another direction away from a mean of good argumentation. Aberdein (2013, 2016) especially has developed this model for understanding many of the fallacies. We can illustrate the view by considering appeals to expertise: the associated vices might be too little respect for reliable authorities at one extreme and too much deference to authorities at the other extreme. Aberdein develops the fallacies-as-argumentation-vices analysis in some detail for other of the ad-arguments and sketches how it might be applied to the other core fallacies, suggesting it can profitably be extended to all of them.

All the fallacies, it is claimed, can be fitted in somewhere in the classification of argumentational vices, but the converse is not true although it is possible to bring to light other shortcomings to which we may fall prey in argumentation. Another aspect of the theory is that it distributes argumentation vices among both senders and audiences. Speakers may infect their arguments with vices when they are, for example, closed minded or lack respect for persons, and audiences can contribute to fallaciousness by letting their receptivity be influenced by naïvety, an over-reliance on common sense, or an unfounded bias against a speaker. Perhaps the development of the virtue argumentation theory approach to fallacies provides a supplement to Mill’s theory of fallacies. He distinguished (1891, V, i, 3) what he called the moral (dispositional) and intellectual causes of fallacy. The study of the argumentative vices envisioned above seems best included under the moral study of fallacies as the vices can be taken to be the presdisposing causes to commit intellectual mistakes, i.e., misevaluations of the weight of evidence.

4. Current issues in fallacy theory

A question that continues to dog fallacy theory is how we are to conceive of fallacies. There would be advantages to having a unified theory of fallacies. It would give us a systematic way of demarcating fallacies and other kinds of mistakes; it would give us a framework for justifying fallacy judgments, and it would give us a sense of the place of fallacies in our larger conceptual schemes. Some general definition of ‘fallacy’ is wanted but the desire is frustrated because there is disagreement about the identity of fallacies. Are they inferential, logical, epistemic or dialectical mistakes? Some authors insist that they are all of one kind: Biro and Siegel, for example, that they are epistemic, and Pragma-dialectics that they are dialectical. There are reasons to think that all fallacies do not easily fit into one category.

Together the Sophistical Refutations and Locke’s Essay are the dual sources of our inheritance of fallacies. However, for four reasons they make for uneasy bedfellows. First, the ad fallacies seem to have a built-in dialectical character, which, it can be argued, Aristotle’s fallacies do not have (they are not sophistical refutations but are in sophistical refutations). Second, Aristotle’s fallacies are logical mistakes: they have no appropriate employment outside eristic argumentation whereas the ad -fallacies are instances of ad -arguments, often appropriately used in dialogues. Third, the appearance condition is part of the Aristotelian inheritance but it is not intimately connected with the ad -fallacies tradition. A fourth reason that contributes to the tension between the Aristotelian and Lockean traditions in fallacies is that the former grew out of philosophical problems, largely what are logical and metaphysical puzzles (consider the many examples in Sophistical Refutations ), whereas the ad -fallacies are more geared to social and political topics of popular concern, the subject matter that most intrigues modern researchers on fallacy theory.

As we look back over our survey we cannot help but observe that fallacies have been identified in relation to some ideal or model of good arguments, good argumentation, or rationality. Aristotle’s fallacies are shortcomings of his ideal of deduction and proof, extended to contexts of refutation. The fallacies listed by Mill are errors of reasoning in a comprehensive model that includes both deduction and induction. Those who have defended SDF as the correct definition of ‘fallacy’ [ 10 ] take logic simpliciter or deductive validity as the ideal of rationality. Informal logicians view fallacies as failures to satisfy the criteria of what they consider to be a cogent argument. Defenders of the epistemic approach to fallacies see them as shortfalls of the standards of knowledge-generating arguments. Finally, those who are concerned with how we are to overcome our disagreements in a reasonable way will see fallacies as failures in relation to ideals of debate or critical discussions.

The standard treatment of the core fallacies has not emerged from a single conception of good argument or reasonableness but rather, like much of our unsystematic knowledge, has grown as a hodgepodge collection of items, proposed at various time and from different perspectives, that continues to draw our attention, even as the standards that originally brought a given fallacy to light are abandoned or absorbed into newer models of rationality. Hence, there is no single conception of good argument or argumentation to be discovered behind the core fallacies, and any attempt to force them all into a single framework, must take efforts to avoid distorting the character originally attributed to each of them.

From Aristotle to Mill the appearance condition was an essential part of the conception of fallacies. However, some of the new, post-Hamblin, scholars have either ignored it (Finocchiaro, Biro and Siegel) or rejected it because appearances can vary from person to person, thus making the same argument a fallacy for the one who is taken in by the appearance, and not a fallacy for the one who sees past the appearances. This is unsatisfactory for those who think that arguments are either fallacies or not. Appearances, it is also argued, have no place in logical or scientific theories because they belong to psychology (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004). But Walton (e.g., 2010) continues to consider appearances an essential part of fallacies as does Powers (1995, 300) who insists that fallacies must “have an appearance, however quickly seen through, of being valid.” If the mistake in an argument is not masked by an ambiguity that makes it appear to be a better argument than it really is, Powers denies it is a fallacy.

The appearance condition of fallacies serves at least two purposes. First, it can be part of explanations of why reasonable people make mistakes in arguments or argumentation: it may be due in part to an argument’s appearing to be better than it really is. Second, it serves to divide mistakes into two groups: those which are trivial or the result of carelessness (for which there is no cure other than paying better attention), and those which we need to learn to detect through an increased awareness of their seductive nature. Without the appearance condition, it can be argued, no division can be made between these two kinds of errors: either there are no fallacies or all mistakes in argument and/or argumentation are fallacies; a conclusion that some are willing to accept, but which runs contrary to tradition. One can also respond that there is an alternative to using the appearance condition as the demarcation property between fallacies and casual mistakes, namely, frequency. Fallacies are those mistakes we must learn to guard against because they occur with noticeable frequency. To this it may be answered that ‘noticeable frequency’ is vague, and is perhaps best explained by the appearance condition.

On the more practical level, there continues to be discussion about the value of teaching the fallacies to students. Is it an effective way for them to learn to reason well and to avoid bad arguments? One reason to think that it is not effective is that the list of fallacies is not complete, and that even if the group of core fallacies was extended to incorporate other fallacies we thought worth including, we could still not be sure that we had a complete prophylactic against bad arguments. Hence, we are better off teaching the positive criteria for good arguments/ argumentation which give us a fuller set of guidelines for good reasoning. But some (Pragma-dialectics and Johnson and Blair) do think that their stock of fallacies is a complete guard against errors because they have specified a full set of necessary conditions for good arguments/argumentation and they hold that fallacies are just failures to meet one of these conditions.

Another consideration about the value of the fallacies approach to teaching good reasoning is that it tends to make students overly critical and lead them to see fallacies where there are not any; hence, it is maintained we could better advance the instilling of critical thinking skills by teaching the positive criteria of good reasoning and arguments (Hitchcock, 1995). In response to this view, it is argued that, if the fallacies are taught in a non-perfunctory way which includes the explanations of why they are fallacies—which normative standards they transgress—then a course taught around the core fallacies can be effective in instilling good reasoning skills (Blair 1995).

Recently there has been renewed interest in how biases are related to fallacies. Correia (2011) has taken Mill’s insight that biases are predisposing causes of fallacies a step further by connecting identifiable biases with particular fallacies. Biases can influence the unintentional committing of fallacies even where there is no intent to be deceptive, he observes. Taking biases to be “systematic errors that invariably distort the subject’s reasoning and judgment,” the picture drawn is that particular biases are activated by desires and emotions (motivated reasoning) and once they are in play, they negatively affect the fair evaluation of evidence. Thus, for example, the “focussing illusion” bias inclines a person to focus on just a part of the evidence available, ignoring or denying evidence that might lead in another direction. Correia (2011, 118) links this bias to the fallacies of hasty generalization and straw man, suggesting that it is our desire to be right that activates the bias to focus more on positive or negative evidence, as the case may be. Other biases he links to other fallacies.

Thagard (2011) is more concerned to stress the differences between fallacies and biases than to find connections between them. He claims that the model of reasoning articulated by informal logic is not a good fit with the way that people actually reason and that only a few of the fallacies are relevant to the kinds of mistakes people actually make. Thagard’s argument depends on his distinction between argument and inference. Arguments, and fallacies, he takes to be serial and linguistic, but inferences are brain activities and are characterized as parallel and multi-modal. By “parallel” is meant that the brain carries out different processes simultaneously, and by “multi-modal” that the brain uses non-linguistic and emotional, as well as linguistic representations in inferring. Biases (inferential error tendencies) can unconsciously affect inferring. “Motivated inference,” for example, “involves selective recruitment and assessment of evidence based on unconscious processes that are driven by emotional considerations of goals rather than purely cognitive reasoning” (2011, 156). Thagard volunteers a list of more than fifty of these inferential error tendencies. Because motivated inferences result from unconscious mental processes rather than explicit reasoning, the errors in inferences cannot be exposed simply by identifying a fallacy in a reconstructed argument. Dealing with biases requires identification of both conscious and unconscious goals of arguers, goals that can figure in explanations of why they incline to particular biases. “Overcoming people’s motivated inferences,” Thagard concludes, “is therefore more akin to psychotherapy than informal logic” (157), and the importance of fallacies is accordingly marginalized.

In response to these findings, one can admit their relevance to the pedagogy of critical thinking but still recall the distinction between what causes mistakes and what the mistakes are. The analysis of fallacies belongs to the normative study of arguments and argumentation, and to give an account of what the fallacy in a given argument is will involve making reference to some norm of argumentation. It will be an explanation of what the mistake in the argument is. Biases are relevant to understanding why people commit fallacies, and how we are to help them get past them, but they do not help us understand what the fallacy-mistakes are in the first place—this is not a question of psychology. Continued research at this intersection of interests will hopefully shed more light on both biases and fallacies.

• Aberdein, A., 2013, “Fallacy and argumentational vice,” Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA Conference Archive: OSSA 10), available online .
• –––, 2016, “The vices of argument,” Topoi , 25: 413–22.
• Aristotle, Categories , H.P. Cooke (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938.
• –––, On Sophistical Refutations , E. S. Forster (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955.
• –––, Posterior Analytics , H. Tredennick (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960.
• –––, Topics , Books I and VIII , R. Smith (trans.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
• Arnauld, A., and P. Nicole, 1685, Logic, or the Art of Thinking , 5 th edition, J. V. Buroker (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Bachman, J., 1995, “Appeal to authority,” in Hansen and Pinto, 1995, pp. 274–86.
• Bacon, F., 1620, The New Organon , Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960.
• Barth, E. M., and J. L. Martens, 1977, “ Argumentum ad hominem , from chaos to formal dialectic,” Logique et Analyse , 20: 76–96.
• Bentham, J., 1824, The Handbook of Political Fallacies , page references to reprint, H. A. Larrabee (ed.), New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962.
• Biro, J., 1977, “Rescuing ‘begging the question’,” Metaphilosophy , 8: 257–71.
• Biro, J., and H. Siegel, 1992, “Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies,” in Frans H. van Eemeren, et al., editors, Argumentation Illuminated , Amsterdam: Sic Sat, pp. 85–103.
• –––, 1997, “Epistemic normativity, argumentation and fallacies,” Argumentation , 11: 277–293.
• –––, 2006, “In defence of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation,” Informal Logic , 26: 91–102.
• Blair, J. A., 1995, “The place of teaching informal fallacies in teaching reasoning skills or critical thinking,” in Hansen and Pinto 1995, pp. 328–38.
• Brinton, A., 1995, “The ad hominem ,” in Hansen and Pinto 1995, pp. 213–22.
• Churchill, R. P., 1986, Becoming Logical , New York: St Martin’s Press.
• Cohen, D.H., 2009, “Keeping an open mind and having a sense of proportion as virtues in argumentation,” Cogency , 1: 49–64.
• Copi, I. M., 1961, Introduction to Logic , (2 nd ed.), New York: Macmillan.
• Corcoran, J., 1974, “Remarks on Stoic deduction,” in J. Corcoran (ed.), Ancient Logic and its Modern Interpretations , Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 169–81.
• Corner, A., U. Hahn, and M. Oaksford, 2006, “The slippery slope argument—probability, utility and category reappraisal,” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , 28: 1145–1150, available online .
• Correia, V., 2011, “Biases and fallacies: The role of motivated irrationality in fallacious reasoning,” Cogency , 3: 107–26.
• Finocchiaro, M. A., 1974, “The concept of ad hominem argument in Galileo and Locke,” Philosophical Forum , 5: 394–404; page references are to Finocchiaro 2005, pp. 329–39.
• –––, 1981, “Fallacies and the evaluation of reasoning,” American Philosophical Quarterly 18: 13–22; page references are to Finocchiaro 2005, pp. 109–27.
• –––, 1987, “Six types of fallaciousness: towards a realistic theory of logical criticism,” Argumentation 1: 263–82; page references are to Finocchiaro 2005, pp. 128–47.
• –––, 2005, Arguments about Arguments . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Freeman, J. B., 1988, Thinking Logically: Basic Concepts for Reasoning , Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• –––, 1995, “The appeal to popularity and presumption by common knowledge,” in Hansen and Pinto 1995, pp. 265–73.
• Goodwin, J., 1998, “Forms of authority,” Argumentation , 12: 267–80.
• Govier, T., 1982, “What’s wrong with slippery slope fallacies?” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 12: 303–16.
• –––, 1987, “Four reasons there are no fallacies?” in Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation , Dordrecht: Foris; page references to reprint as “Reply to Massey” in Hansen and Pinto 1995, pp. 172–80.
• –––, 1988, A Practical Study of Argument , 2nd edition, Belmont: Wadsworth.
• Grootendorst, R., 1997, “Jeremy Bentham’s Handbook of Political Fallacies ,” in Historical Foundations of Informal Logic , D. Walton and A. Brinton (eds.), Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 114–24.
• Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford, 2006a, “A normative theory of argument strength,” Informal Logic , 26: 1–24.
• –––, 2006b, “A Bayesian approach to informal argument fallacies,” Synthese , 152: 207–236.
• Hamblin, C. L., 1970, Fallacies , London: Methuen.
• Hansen, H. V., 2002, “The straw thing of fallacy theory: the standard definition of ‘fallacy’,” Argumentation , 16: 134–55.
• –––, 2006, “Whately on arguments involving authority,” Informal logic , 26: 319–40.
• –––, and R. C. Pinto (eds.), 1995, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings , University Park: Penn State Press.
• Hintikka, J., 1987, “The fallacy of fallacies,” Argumentation , 1: 211–38.
• –––, 1997, “What was Aristotle doing in his early logic, anyway? A reply to Woods and Hansen,” Synthese , 113: 241–49.
• Hitchcock, D., 1995, “Do fallacies have a place in the teaching of reasoning skills or critical thinking?” in Hansen and Pinto 1995, pp. 319–27.
• –––, 2000, “Fallacies and formal logic in Aristotle,” History and Philosophy of Logic , 21: 2017–21.
• Irwin, T., and G. Fine, 1996, Aristotle, Introductory Readings , Indianapolis: Hackett.
• –––, 1987, “The blaze of her splendors: Suggestions about revitalizing fallacy theory,” Argumentation , 1: 239–53; page references to reprint in Hansen and Pinto 1995, pp. 107–19.
• Johnson, R., and J. A. Blair, 1993, Logical Self-Defence , 3 rd ed., Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
• Johnstone, H. W., Jr., 1952, “Philosophy and argumentum ad hominem ,” Journal of Philosophy , 49: 489–98.
• Kahane, H., 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric , Belmont: Wadsworth.
• Korb, K., 2003, “Bayesian informal logic and fallacy,” Informal Logic , 23: 41–70.
• Krabbe, E. C. W., 1995, “Appeal to ignorance,” in Hansen and Pinto 1995, pp. 251–64.
• Locke, J., 1690, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding . Many editions.
• Lorenzen, P., 1969, Normative Logic and Ethics , Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut; 2nd annotated edition, 1984.
• Massey, G. J., 1981, “The fallacy behind fallacies,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 6: 489–500; page references are to reprint in Hansen and Pinto 1995, pp. 159–71.
• Mates, B., 1965, Elementary Logic , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mill, J. S., 1891, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive , 8 th edition, New York: Harper and Brothers; first edition 1843.
• Nuchelmans, G., 1993, “On the fourfold root of argumentum ad hominem ,” in E. C. W. Krabbe, R. J. Dalitz, and P. A. Smit (eds.), Empirical Logic and Public Debate , Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 37–47.
• Pinto, R. C., 1995, Post hoc, ergo propter hoc , in Hansen and Pinto, pp. 302–11.
• Powers, L., 1995, “Equivocation,” in Hansen and Pinto 1995, pp. 287–301.
• Rosen, F., 2006, “The philosophy of error and liberty of thought: J. S. Mill on logical fallacies,” Informal Logic , 26: 121–47.
• Salmon, W., 1963, Logic , Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• Schreiber, S. G., 2003, Aristotle on False Reasoning , Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Smith, R., 1997, “Commentary,” Aristotle: Topics, Books I and VIII , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Thagard, P., 2011, “Critical thinking and informal logic: neuropsychological perspectives,” Informal Logic , 31: 152–70.
• Tindale, C. W., 1996, “Fallacies in transition: An assessment of the Pragma-dialectical perspective,” Informal Logic , 18: 17–33.
• –––, 2007, “On Fallacy,” in Reason Reclaimed: Essays in Honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson , H.V. Hansen and R. C. Pinto (eds.), Newport News: Vale Press, pp. 155–70.
• Van Eemeren, F. H., 2010, Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse , Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• –––, and Rob Grootendorst, 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions , Dordrecht: Foris.
• –––, 1992, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies , Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
• –––, 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Walton, D. N., 1991, Begging the Question , New York: Greenwood.
• –––, 1995, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacies , Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
• –––, 1998, Ad hominem arguments , Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press.
• –––, 2010, “Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are,” Informal Logic , 30: 159–84.
• –––, 2011, “Defeasible reasoning and informal fallacies,” Synthese , 179: 377–407.
• Watts, I., 1796, Logick: or, the Right Use of Reason , 2 nd edition; page references to reprint, New York: Garland, 1984.
• Whately, R., 1875, Elements of Logic , 9 th ed., London: Longmans, Green and Company; first edition 1826.
• Woods, J., 1992, “Who cares about the fallacies?” in Argumentation Illuminated , F. H. van Eemeren, et al. (eds.), Amsterdam: SicSat, pp. 23–48.
• –––, 2013, Errors of Reasoning: Naturalizing the Logic of Inference , London: College Publications.
• –––, and H. V. Hansen, 1997, “Hintikka on Aristotle’s fallacies,” Synthese , 113: 217–39.
• –––, 2001, “The subtleties of Aristotle on non-cause,” Logique et analyse , 176: 395–415.
• Woods, J., and D. N. Walton, 1989, Fallacies: Selected Papers, 1972–1982 , Dordrecht: Foris.
• Wreen, M., 1989, “A bolt of fear,” Philosophy and Rhetoric , 22: 131–40.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Curtis, Gary N., Fallacy Files
• Dowden, Bradley, Fallacies , entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
• Hansen, H.V., and C. Fioret, 2016. A searchable bibliography of fallacies—2016 , Informal Logic , 36: 432–72.
• Informal Logic , an open-access journal.
• Labossiere, Michael C., Fallacies , hosted by The Nizkor Project.
• RAIL , a blog about Reasoning, Argumentation, and Informal Logic.

logic: informal | relativism

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the executive and subject editors who suggested a way to improve the discussion of begging the question .

Copyright © 2020 by Hans Hansen < hhansen @ uwindsor . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Guide to the Most Common Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that weaken or invalidate an argument. Whether they’re used intentionally or unintentionally, they can be quite persuasive. Learning how to identify fallacies is an excellent way to avoid being fooled or manipulated by faulty arguments. It will also help you avoid making fallacious arguments yourself! 

Scroll through to learn to identify some of the more common fallacies. Once you can recognize them, you’ll see them everywhere!

A note on how to use this post: This page is a resource of the most common logical fallacies, and is not intended to be read from top to bottom. Feel free to share the graphics to help educate others about errors in reasoning. Hopefully together we can encourage more productive (and logical!) dialogue.

Other names: Personal attack, name-calling

Definition and explanation : Latin for “to the person,” the ad hominem fallacy is a personal attack. Essentially, instead of addressing the substance of an argument, someone is attempting to discredit the argument by attacking the source. 

The ad hominem is one of the most common logical fallacies. While it can take many forms — from name calling and insults, to attacking a person’s character, to questioning their motives, to calling them hypocrites — any argument that targets the source, rather than the argument, is an ad hominem. Unfortunately, ad hominem arguments are often quite effective because they appeal to people’s emotions and biases. 

No matter the form, the ad hominem is fallacious because the source of the argument is irrelevant to the substance of the argument. It’s a diversion tactic.

How to counter: While there are many sub-types of ad hominem fallacies, identifying the exact kind is less important than recognizing someone is attempting to divert from your argument back onto you in some way. It might be tempting to respond to their attack in kind. However, by resorting to an ad hominem fallacy, an arguer is essentially admitting they lack a substantive argument. Instead of letting them get under your skin, point out the irrelevance of their argument. Or, you could ignore it and move on!

Back to the Top

A necdotal fallacy.

For a more detailed explanation : Four ways your personal experiences can lead you astray

Definition and explanation : The anecdotal fallacy uses a personal experience or story as evidence for a claim.

Many people think personal experiences provide the best kind of evidence. “We’ll believe it when we see it!” But anecdotes are infamously unreliable. 

• We can misperceive our experiences. While there is an objective reality outside of our heads, our perception of that reality is a subjective interpretation. Our brains filter and interpret stimuli and fill in any gaps based on expectations. Yet even though our perceptions are flawed and incomplete, we’re convinced we “know” what we saw or experienced.  For example, eyewitness testimony tends to be among the most valued forms of evidence in a trial…yet it’s also the leading cause of wrongful convictions. 
• Anecdotes aren’t controlled. Imagine you have a headache and take a supplement. Your headache gets better! Was it due to the supplement? The correct answer is: You don’t know. Any number of things could’ve been the cause. (And also…nearly all headaches go away on their own.) That’s why treatments are tested in carefully controlled trials that compare the treatment to a placebo. 
• Anecdotes often aren’t typical. Small samples are often not representative of normal conditions. Yet because the human brain doesn’t intuitively grasp probabilities we rely on stories or experiences when deciding what to believe.  Consider the following examples: My cousin was mugged in Sydney, so Australia is dangerous. Toyotas are unreliable because I once had a Toyota that was always in the shop. This winter seemed really cold, so there’s no global warming. 
• Finally, people aren’t always truthful.  Did that person on social media REALLY lose weight eating bacon and ice cream? Did your dad exaggerate his “ghost” story? Did the person in the testimonial really “cure” their acne with the supplement? It’s the hard truth, but people can lie.

The bottom line: Anecdotes aren’t good evidence. 

How to counter : First, it’s important to not fall for this fallacy yourself. Remember that your brain prefers stories – especially vivid and emotional ones – to data. So if your goal is to align your beliefs with reality, be skeptical about the conclusions you can draw from your lived experiences and be humble enough to admit that you might be wrong.

In conversations with others, be empathetic. Most people are convinced that anecdotes are a sure-fire way of knowing what’s true, and it can be quite difficult to convince someone that they might be wrong. We don’t like to admit that we can be fooled, especially by ourselves. If the conversation allows, gently explain why anecdotes aren’t good evidence.

Appeal to authority

Other names: Argument from authority, appeal to false authority

Definition and explanation : The appeal to authority fallacy claims that something is true based on the position of an assumed authority. 

This fallacy is very common, and can be quite tricky, so it’s important to be able to recognize it and understand when it is and isn’t fallacious. In general, arguments should have evidence, and authorities aren’t evidence. However, since it’s impossible for any of us to verify every single thing ourselves, we often rely on experts. For example, we trust mechanics to fix cars, doctors to treat diseases, and pilots to fly planes. Due to their experience, training, and knowledge, experts are better able to evaluate evidence related to their areas of expertise. Therefore, citing actual experts isn’t an appeal to authority. However, citing authorities can only support an argument, not prove it, as experts can be wrong… though they are more likely to be right than non-experts. 

An appeal to authority IS fallacious when:

• The “authority” isn’t an expert. This is probably the most common form of the fallacy, and easiest to spot. For example, Jenny McCarthy isn’t a vaccine expert, the Food Babe isn’t a nutrition expert, and Tom Brady isn’t a health expert, yet all use their celebrity to promote products or services. Or consider a senator who says climate change is a hoax, or your math teacher who claims aliens built the pyramids. The point is, these supposed “authorities” aren’t experts, so their testimony doesn’t hold any weight.
• The “authority” is an expert in another area. The opinion of experts is only relevant within their area of expertise. For example, a heart surgeon is not an expert in climate change and a physicist is not an expert in cancer. An advanced degree does not make someone an expert in all areas, and there will always be someone with a doctorate who has crackpot ideas. So when an authority makes a claim, it’s important to ask whether they are in a position to make such a claim.
• The “authority” makes a claim that is contrary to the expert consensus in that particular area. The expert consensus is the collective agreed-upon knowledge of experts in a specialized field. As non-experts, the consensus is the most reliable form of knowledge. However, it can be difficult for the average person to sort out, especially when someone who appears to be a legitimate expert makes claims contrary to the consensus. But if you’re cherry picking an authority with a minority position to make an argument, but neglecting the authority of the expert consensus, you’re committing an appeal to authority.

The bottom line is that if you’re going to cite an authority to make an argument, it needs to be an actual expert on the topic at hand, and one who is in line with the expert consensus, otherwise you’ve committed an appeal to authority fallacy. How to counter: We’re often unaware of how many of our beliefs originated from trusted authority figures, such as teachers, parents, and various online sources. Only when we have to defend a belief do we realize how much of our knowledge we’ve outsourced… which can result in us committing an appeal to authority fallacy. Get in the habit of evaluating authorities to determine if they have the expertise to make various claims. And empathize with others who may not yet know how to discern who is and isn’t a reliable authority.

To learn more: The Logic of Science: Appealing to Authority vs Deferring to Experts

Appeal to emotions

Definition and explanation : The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotion to persuade, instead of evidence. 

This fallacy is actually a broad category of fallacies that includes appeals to any number of emotions, ranging from negative –– anger, jealousy, shame, hate, and disgust — to positive — happiness, hope, courage, and love. Recognizing which specific emotion was used isn’t as important as realizing that an argument has substituted logical reasons with emotional ones.

However, it’s important to note that the use of emotions in-and-of-itself is not fallacious, as they can be relevant to an argument. It’s only fallacious when feelings are used instead of facts as evidence that something is true or false. 

The appeal to emotion fallacy is often used alongside other fallacies and rhetorical techniques in an attempt to bolster up an argument. For example, loaded , hyperbolic, or even inflammatory, language is common, as are ad hominem attacks, name-calling, YELLING, etc. 

As you might expect, the appeal to emotion is common in advertisements, politics, propaganda…and quite frankly, everywhere. It can also be very effective, as many of us are unaware of how much our emotions can drive our reasoning. This not only leaves us vulnerable to emotional manipulation by others, it also makes us prone to committing this fallacy ourselves. (When we’re emotional we tend to make emotional arguments.)

If you notice that you’re emotionally triggered in some way, practice emotional skepticism. Instead of allowing your emotions to control you, try to take a step back and evaluate the arguments on their merits.

How to counter : As always, it’s important not to commit this fallacy yourself. One of the most important – and difficult – critical thinking skills is emotional awareness. Ask yourself: are my emotions driving my reasoning? And if so, am I using emotions to argue? In short, try to argue with facts, not feelings.

If someone else is appealing to your emotions, consider that it might not be a deliberate attempt to manipulate your reasoning. Sometimes they’re a reflection of the emotions of the person making the argument. We all do it from time to time, so have empathy! They may not realize what they’re doing. Instead, kindly point out the error and ask for evidence.

The bottom line is that arguments should be supported by evidence – and emotions aren’t evidence.

Appeal to nature

Definition and explanation : The appeal to nature fallacy argues that something is good because it’s natural or bad because it’s unnatural. 

There are two major reasons the appeal to nature is fallacious:

• “Natural” is difficult to define. Many things that are “unnatural” come from nature, so when does something stop being natural? For example, oil is natural, and plastic is made from oil. Is plastic natural? Many antibiotics originally came from nature, so are antibiotics natural? It’s also often unclear what someone means by “natural.”  People will often use vague terms like “chemicals” to denote that something is unnatural. But literally everything is made of chemicals. The point is, dividing things into natural and synthetic is often a false choice. Like most things in life, it’s not black and white, but shades of gray. 
• We can’t assume something is good based on whether it’s natural or unnatural. I have bad news: nature doesn’t care if you live. Nature is full of things that will harm or kill you, from typhoons to botulinum to viruses to sharks.  Also, human advancements that are considered “unnatural” have greatly improved our quality and quantity of life. Flushing toilets, treated drinking water, antibiotics, and vaccines have nearly doubled our life expectancy over the last century. 

Appeals to nature are very common, as advertisers are acutely aware of our tendency to think natural equals good. For example, “all natural” labels are ubiquitous on food packages; personal care products claim they are “plant based” and “chemical free”; and alternative medicine routinely claims its “natural” treatments are safer than the “chemicals” and “pharmaceuticals” used in modern medicine. 

The point is, the appeal to nature is fallacious because we simply cannot determine if something is good based on whether it’s perceived to be natural.

How to counter: First, try not to fall for the fallacy yourself! Notice how often it’s used to sell products. Then ask yourself what they mean by “natural,” and remember that its supposed naturalness doesn’t inherently mean it’s good. 

When countering the appeal to nature fallacy, keep in mind how pervasive the belief is. Consider asking questions to get to the root of someone’s misunderstandings, and based on their responses, offer gentle explanations. To learn more : The Logic of Science: Dying the way that nature intended: Appeal to nature fallacies

Appeal to tradition

Other names: Appeal to antiquity, appeal to age, appeal to custom

Definition and explanation : The appeal to tradition fallacy asserts that something is good or true because it’s old, or because it’s the way it’s “always been done.” 

People have a fascination with the past, from ancient civilizations to old cultural traditions to long-standing familial practices. We tend to stick with the familiar, and assume it’s the right, or better, way of doing things. We have believing brains , and often believe what we’re told, perpetuating beliefs over generations, even if the beliefs aren’t true.

The appeal to tradition fallacy is very common, and if you’re not paying attention it can be quite convincing. We equate being around for a long time with standing the test of time. For example, astrology has been used for millennia, and acupuncture is an ancient practice… so they must work! Sometimes that’s true. But we’ve also weeded out a lot of bad ideas. The “ancients” believed the earth was flat and diseases were caused by witches. We can thank science and progress for discovering that germs cause diseases and bloodletting isn’t an effective treatment. (Or burning witches at the stake!)

The appeal to tradition is fallacious because it substitutes actual reasons with historical ones. If something truly works, provide the evidence. “Ancient wisdom” and “this is the way it’s always been done” are NOT sufficient.

How to counter: First, try not to fall for the fallacy yourself! Notice how often it’s used to sell products and services, or to justify existing social, cultural, or religious practices. Then ask yourself: Other than tradition, what is the evidence?

When countering the appeal to tradition fallacy, remember how pervasive the belief is, then consider explaining why it’s fallacious. It might even be a good opportunity to explain the value of evidence!

Argument from ignorance

Other names: Appeal to ignorance

Definition and explanation : The argument from ignorance fallacy asserts that something is true, because we don’t know that it’s not. A foundation of critical thinking is that claims require evidence, and claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A lack of evidence simply demonstrates our ignorance, and is not a reason to believe. 

This fallacy is commonly used by science deniers, pseudoscience proponents, conspiracy theorists, and believers in the supernatural who point to anomalies that aren’t immediately easily explainable as “evidence” of their beliefs. Was that a UFO? Bigfoot? A ghost? A miracle? We don’t know that it wasn’t, so it must have been! 

The argument from ignorance is fallacious because when we don’t know, we simply don’t know! A more rational response is to maintain a healthy level of skepticism and demand sufficient evidence before accepting a claim.

This fallacy is frequently committed alongside the burden of proof fallacy , which is when someone makes a claim without evidence then demands their opponent disprove their claim. They then claim their belief is true because you can’t disprove it.

How to counter: If someone is unfamiliar with critical thinking, they may not understand the importance of evidence. Kindly remind them that claims require evidence. And if they demand that you disprove their claim, remind them that they bear the burden of proof. 

Other names: Appeal to the masses, appeal to common belief, argumentum ad populum, appeal to popularity

Definition and explanation : The bandwagon fallacy argues that a claim is true because a lot of people believe it’s true, or conversely a claim is not true because a lot of people believe it’s not. 

Because humans are social animals, the bandwagon fallacy can be quite convincing. A common tactic is to claim “everybody knows” or “people say/think.” Unsurprisingly, advertisers use our desire to belong by touting the popularity of their products. Likewise, politicians appeal to their popularity when trying to earn our support. But bandwagon is fallacious because popularity doesn’t determine truth. A lot of people can be, and have been, wrong. Your parents may have warned you about the potential harm of peer pressure when they asked rhetorically, “If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?!?!”

How to counter: It’s important to remember that the truth of a claim isn’t determined by its popularity but by the evidence supporting it. Therefore, once you recognize the use of the bandwagon fallacy, call it out, and ask for evidence.

Burden of proof

Other names: Shifting the burden of proof

Definition and explanation : A person who makes a claim bears the burden of proof to provide sufficient evidence for their claim. This standard is the foundation of our legal system, the process of science, and critical thinking. How much evidence is sufficient depends on the claim, but more extraordinary claims require more extraordinary evidence. And claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The burden of proof fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim, but instead of providing evidence, they demand their opponent disprove their claim. To illustrate why this is fallacious, imagine a prosecutor charging a suspect with murder, but instead of presenting evidence to establish the suspect’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they demand the suspect prove their innocence. The point is, it’s never up to anyone else to prove your claim wrong. You made the claim, you need to provide evidence.

The burden of proof fallacy frequently appears alongside the argument from ignorance fallacy , which is when someone asserts a claim is true because no one has proven it false. But remember that the truth of a claim is determined by the amount of evidence supporting it. A lack of evidence simply means we don’t know.

How to counter: Evasion of the burden of proof can take many forms, from shifting the burden to their opponent (eg “prove me wrong”), to making claims that can’t be disproved (eg supernatural or subjective), to shifting the burden onto vague sources (eg “they say”).  People unfamiliar with critical thinking are often unaware of the burden of proof concept, or even evidence-based thinking. To respond, point out that they’ve made a claim that requires evidence and that they bear the burden of proof. 

Cherry picking

Definition and explanation : The cherry picking fallacy occurs when evidence is selectively chosen to support a claim instead of considering all available evidence. 

Imagine a cherry tree, where each of the cherries represent a piece of evidence for a claim. If the goal is to determine the truth of the claim, it’s essential to look at the body of evidence. But by cherry picking favorable evidence – and ignoring contradictory evidence – the overall understanding of an issue can be distorted.

It’s possible to selectively choose evidence to support nearly any position and miss the bigger picture. For example, everything living thing needs liquid water. In fact, water is so essential to life that, when looking for life outside of Earth, we look for evidence of water. But, what if I told you that all serial killers have admitted to drinking water? Or that it’s the primary ingredient in many toxic pesticides? Or that drinking too much water can lead to death? By selectively choosing these facts, we’re left with a distorted, inaccurate view of water’s importance for life.

Sometimes cherry picking is a deliberate attempt to deceive. However, sometimes it’s not purposeful, but a result of the arguer’s desire to believe. (No one can lie to us like we can.) In either case, the more motivated we are the “better” we are at cherry picking, and the more fallacious the argument. 

How to counter : This fallacy can be convincing and can even lead to overconfidence in a position. After all, cherry picked evidence is still evidence! That said, if the goal is to find the truth, all evidence must be considered.

As always, be sure you don’t commit this fallacy yourself! Be aware of potential emotions and biases that could be driving your reasoning.

And if someone else commits this fallacy, apply the principle of charity. It’s possible that their selection of evidence was caused by a desire to believe, not a desire to deceive. Then gently point out evidence they might not have considered.

False Cause

Other names: Confusing correlation and causation, Questionable cause, Mistaking correlation for causation, Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Definition and explanation : The false cause fallacy assumes that two events are causally connected when they aren’t. 

You may have heard the phrase, “Correlation doesn’t prove causation.” And it’s true… but what does that mean? Let’s start with a couple of definitions:

• Correlation : A co-relationship or link exists between things or events, so that they occur together
• Causation : A change in one thing or event causes a change in another

The point is that just because two things occur together doesn’t mean one caused the other. Sometimes it’s just a coincidence, and sometimes there’s something else causing both events.

For example, every morning the rooster crows and the sun rises. These two events are correlated. But the rooster doesn’t cause the sunrise.

While that may be an obvious example, it’s very easy to confuse correlation and causation. And if we’re not careful, we can easily be fooled. It’s human nature to search for explanations by finding patterns and connecting the dots. Maybe you ate a sandwich for lunch and threw up later? Or maybe you wore your lucky socks and hit a home run? But are these events causally related? We often don’t know, yet assume we do. 

Science can help sort correlation from causation, but it’s complicated, as only carefully controlled studies can demonstrate causation. Let’s say we want to find out if Echinacea treats the common cold.  We randomly divide subjects into two groups, where one gets Echinacea and the other a placebo. (Importantly, we don’t let the participants know which group they’re in!) If the group receiving Echinacea reports shorter and less severe colds than the placebo group, we can say that Echinacea has a causal effect on colds. This research has been done , and Echinacea does not treat colds. However, many people will swear that it does, because they’ve tried it and their cold went away. Some of this is probably a placebo effect. But also… colds go away. That’s a correlation.  

However, it’s not always possible (or ethical) to control. Therefore much of science involves observational studies, where data is collected in the “real world.” Because the real world is messy, these studies only provide correlations. For example, people observed that smokers tended to get lung cancer. We can’t ethically ask study participants to smoke to see if they get sick… so we had to study the issue in other ways, such as epidemiological studies. Through lots of research exploring the different possible variables that could be causing the link between smoking and lung cancer, eventually we concluded smoking almost certainly causes lung cancer. 

The false cause fallacy is extremely common, so it’s important to learn how to recognize it so we don’t fall for it ourselves. We not only see patterns everywhere, much of science is based on studies that provide “links.” We should always keep in mind the limits of what we can say about the relationship between events. Your best bet is to be skeptical and hold off on assuming causation until you know more.

How to counter:  First, try not to fall for the fallacy yourself! Notice how often you perceive correlations. Then think through what else might be behind the relationship. We all want explanations, and understanding the difference between correlation and causation can be an empowering way to make better decisions.

In conversations with others, remember that they may not know the difference between correlation and causation. So if someone commits this fallacy give them the benefit of the doubt, and try to gently explain it to them. We all would benefit from understanding the difference!

False choice

Other names: False dilemma, false dichotomy, black-or-white, either/or, fallacy of the excluded middle

Definition and explanation : The false choice oversimplifies a complex issue into two options, ignoring the possibility that other options may exist. In this fallacy, the arguer frames their opponent’s choices as black or white, this or that, when in reality there is likely a spectrum of options in between. Often, the choices presented are used to shut down debate and force an opponent into the arguer’s preferred position.

False choice fallacies are quite common, and they can be very powerful, so it’s important to be able to recognize them. Binary thinking can force us into positions we wouldn’t normally take. The false choice is fallacious because the vast majority of the time there are more than two positions available to us. 

How to counter: First, consider the possibility that the false choice was unintentional, due to an emotional attachment to one of the choices or a lack of knowledge on the issue. Sometimes, however, the false choice was a purposeful attempt to strengthen the arguer’s position, by presenting their view as the only reasonable option. Depending on the circumstances, it can be difficult to propose an alternative, as the two options may have been presented to force choosing a side. 

The most important thing is to not let a false choice limit your options. So ask yourself, are these really my only two choices?

False EQUIVALENCE

Definition and explanation : The false equivalence fallacy argues that two or more things are the same, despite having important differences.

Comparisons can be a powerful way to understand new concepts, as they help us to make connections with things we already know.  

But the devil is in the details. While superficial similarities are often easier to see, they may be masking important differences…and if we’re not careful we could be misled.

The false equivalence fallacy can take many different forms, some of which include:

• Oversimplifying a comparison by exaggerating a shared characteristic, downplaying important differences, or removing essential context or nuance, such as comparing things that have differing orders of magnitude. Or in other words, comparing apples to oranges .
• Presenting a false balance by giving equal weight to “both sides” of an argument despite one side being supported by significantly more evidence. Sometimes called bothsidesism , this type of false equivalence is often committed by the media, especially when covering science. In their attempt to avoid bias, opposing “sides” of an issue are given equal air time, creating the impression of a balanced debate.
• Drawing a moral equivalence between actions that aren’t comparable. Sometimes referred to as whataboutism , it implies all parties are equally wrong or to blame. Essentially, this is a diversion tactic, used to justify someone’s behavior and/or deflect criticism. 

False equivalences are very common and can be quite persuasive if you’re not paying attention. It’s often easier to see similarities than it is to dive into the weeds and analyze how things are different, but just because they seem to share an attribute does not make them equivalent.  So if someone makes a comparison, stop and ask yourself: Are there important differences that would invalidate the conclusion? 

How to counter : First, it’s important to not commit this fallacy yourself! If you’re making a comparison, don’t just think about how they’re similar, try to think about how they’re different.  Make sure you’re able to justify why things are equivalent in a way that’s relevant to the conclusion.

In conversations with others, (kindly) explain to them why their argument is flawed. Point out that, while there are similarities, there are key differences that impact their conclusion. 

GALILEO GAMBIT

Definition and explanation: The Galileo gambit claims that someone must be correct because they’ve been criticized, often for disagreeing with a scientific consensus. The argument suggests that, since Galileo was thought to be wrong but was later proven right, people who are thought to be wrong today will also be proven right.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was an astronomer who was convicted by the church for his support of heliocentrism, the idea that the sun (and not the earth) was the center of the universe.

Those who deny science are quite fond of pointing out that “Galileo was branded a denier” and often point to this famous quote: “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

But many who use Galileo’s name are missing a few important things.

The Galileo gambit is a type of false equivalence , which compares things that have important differences. For example, Galileo was suppressed by the Church, not the “scientific establishment”. While the scientists continued to disagree and collect evidence, they didn’t ban his teachings or put him under house arrest for heresy. Conversely, the Church didn’t clear Galileo’s name or admit he was right until 1992 !

And importantly, disagreeing with a consensus doesn’t make a position correct. The vast majority of people (scientists included!) who refuse to accept well-supported scientific conclusions are just wrong. 

Those who compare themselves to Galileo imagine themselves as being persecuted or censored for bravely standing up to a scientific establishment. But feeling persecuted isn’t the same as being correct. And ironically, those who deny overwhelming evidence bear more resemblance to the ideologically-motivated church than to the scientific community.

This fallacy is also based on the idea, largely a myth, that scientific advancements are overturned by lone geniuses. Galileo was building on the work of Nicolas Copernicus. Around the same time, Johannes Kepler was developing the laws of planetary motion. And in 1687, Isaac Newton explained planetary motion using the universal law of gravitation.

For every fringe idea that turns out to be true, there are countless others that are just wrong. As Carl Sagan said, “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.”

Circling back to Galileo’s quote , the “authority” of which he was speaking was the religious authorities in the Church, not scientists. He also wasn’t saying that disagreeing with authorities is what makes someone right, but their “humble reasoning.” In short, evidence trumps authority.

The point is, denying a consensus doesn’t make you like Galileo. Revolutionary ideas do get accepted, but they require evidence. We don’t remember Galileo because he disagreed, but because he was right. 

How to counter: While science denial relies heavily on the use of logical fallacies, the Galileo gambit is one of the most reliable indicators . It’s easier to think of ourselves as outsider geniuses heroically standing up for the truth than it is to admit the much more likely possibility that it’s us who’s wrong. No one likes to think of themselves as a science denier. 

Science denial usually stems from a desire to avoid accepting conclusions that conflict with our identity or ideology, or those in which we don’t like the solutions (i.e., solution aversion ). Thus, if you see this fallacy in use, consider the underlying motivations. 

One option is to explain why the comparison with Galileo doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.  Or you could simply ask, what evidence would change their mind ?

Hasty GeNeralization S

Other names : Jumping to conclusions, argument from small numbers, overgeneralization, biased generalization

Definition and explanation : The hasty generalization fallacy draws a broad conclusion based on a small sample. 

All day, every day, we use limited information to generalize. By definition we have to, as we will never have fully complete data sets to analyze for each and every decision. However, the strength of our conclusion depends on our sample: those based on larger and more representative samples are significantly stronger than those based on smaller or atypical samples.

The hasty generalization fallacy occurs when we use limited evidence (i.e. a small sample) to make a broad claim. Often the examples we use to support our conclusion (i.e. our “sample”) are simply anecdotes , such as our own personal experiences or stories we’ve heard from others. Armed with our “evidence”, we jump to a conclusion. Essentially, we assume our “sample” is representative of reality. But not only are our experiences limited, our biases can influence the examples we choose, resulting in a conclusion that isn’t justified.

For example:

• Anthony was bitten by a cat when he was young, so he concludes that “all cats bite.” 
• Leslie claims “smoking isn’t bad for you,” because his dad smoked his whole life “and was fine.” 
• Monica was mugged on her vacation in Sydney, so she claims that “Australia is a dangerous country.” 
• Jason doesn’t like the news coverage of his favorite politician, so he says “all media is biased.”

Hasty generalizations can lead to the formation of stereotypes, as we assume our limited experiences with people can be generalized to their supposed “group.” For example:

• Mauve hasn’t had the best experience with her younger co-workers, so she claims that “all Millennials are lazy.”
• Sean was cut off in traffic by a female, so he thinks that “all women are bad drivers.”
• Marjorie saw a news story about an illegal immigrant who committed murder, so she says that “all illegal immigrants are dangerous.”
• Jaimie thinks that “all Muslims are terrorists” because of the way she sees them portrayed on TV.

Hasty generalization fallacies are very common and can be quite convincing. They are supported by “evidence,” after all. (Though they’re often unreliable, anecdotes can be very powerful.) Even more, once we’ve jumped to a conclusion, confirmation bias kicks in and we “see” supporting evidence everywhere…so we become even more convinced we’re right.

How to counter : First, it’s important not to fall for this fallacy yourself. While making generalizations is unavoidable, we should remember that the resulting conclusions are tentative, and therefore avoid overconfidence and exaggerated language (e.g. all/none, always/never). In short, don’t make arguments you can’t support!

If someone else makes a hasty generalization, ask for evidence! (As always, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.) Based on their response, consider pointing out the fallacy in their argument and that there’s insufficient evidence to justify their claim. Remember to be kind, as they honestly might not know their argument was flawed. 

Either way, consider looking up reliable data (if it’s available), and proportion your acceptance of the conclusion accordingly.

I’m entitled to my opinion

Definition and explanation : It is true that everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, “I’m entitled to my opinion,” is often used to shield an unsupported position. And being entitled to your opinion doesn’t mean you’re right, or that anyone needs to take your opinion seriously.

There are several problems with this fallacy. 

• An opinion doesn’t mean what they think it means. Opinions are subjective judgements or viewpoints. When someone claims they are “entitled to their opinion,” it’s often because they are trying to shield factually incorrect assertions.  
• All opinions aren’t equal. Expert opinions are interpretations of evidence based on years of study and experience, and are significantly more robust and reliable than non-expert opinions. “I’m entitled to my opinion” suggests that their opinion is just as good as anyone else’s.
• We should all be open to changing our minds if the evidence suggests we should. “I’m entitled to my opinion” is essentially an admission that they can’t justify their position… but yet they’re unwilling to entertain contradictory evidence or other points of view. 

In the face of facts that contradict a belief, especially one central to our identity or values, we use  motivated reasoning  to reduce the  cognitive dissonance  that arises when reality and our beliefs are in conflict. When that fails, our Get Out of Jail Free Card is to defend the belief by rendering it unfalsifiable and therefore immune to evidence. We move the goalposts. Discount sources or deny evidence. Proclaim that it’s our opinion.

It’s important to remember that the purpose of arguing isn’t to be right, it’s to get it right. “I’m entitled to my opinion” shuts down any further disagreement. We simply don’t want to be wrong.

How to counter: I tell my students on the first day of class that they are not entitled to their opinions. (At least not in class!) They are only entitled to what they can support with evidence. 

It’s a bit trickier in the “real world.” Remember that people are often unfamiliar with the basics of critical thinking, so they may not be used to having to support their positions with evidence. Consider explaining why “I’m entitled to my opinion” is fallacious, and the benefits of healthy disagreement. The best approach is probably to ask them why they hold this particular opinion, and why they think they’re “entitled” to it.

To learn more: The Conversation: No, you’re not entitled to your opinion

PERFECT SOLUTION

Written by Bryan Montford; edited by Melanie Trecek-King

Definition and explanation: The Perfect Solution Fallacy assumes a perfect solution exists, and rejects any solution that’s less than ideal despite potential benefits. This fallacy relies on black-and-white thinking, oversimplifying complex situations and creating a false choice between perfection and inaction. However, it’s fallacious because solutions don’t need to be perfect to provide benefits. Not only that, perfect solutions are unrealistic, unattainable, and often unnecessary.

The perfect solution fallacy can pop up in many forms in our daily lives. For example, someone might say they don’t want a relationship unless it’s completely conflict-free. Or, they won’t take music lessons because they’ll never be as good as a professional musician. Rejecting solutions because of unrealistic expectations creates inaction and missed opportunities, and dismisses the benefits of incremental improvements.

How to counter: Inaction won’t result in change or help you achieve your goals, so focus on progress instead. Be wary of arguments that hinge on unattainable standards, as solutions don’t need to be perfect to provide benefits. We can achieve progress even if solutions aren’t perfect.

Red Herring

Definition and explanation : The red herring fallacy is an attempt to distract from the main issue by bringing in irrelevant information.

The name of this fallacy comes from a story in which the smelly fish were used to cover up the scent of hares to distract hunting hounds. While the story may or may not be true, it can be a helpful way to visualize how this fallacy works.

In argumentation, the red herring fallacy is used to divert attention from the main point by changing the subject. It can be difficult to recognize, as the new information might seem tangentially relevant…but in fact it’s a shift towards something that’s easier or safer for the party committing the fallacy. Basically, they lack a good response, so they confuse and distract.

How to counter : The red herring fallacy is very common, so it’s important to be able to recognize it. Pay close attention to responses to monitor if the information that’s offered is relevant to the original issue. This can be more challenging than it seems, and if you’re not careful you could end up miles away from where you intended. 

If you spot a red herring, you could try to redirect the conversation back to the topic at hand. If they continue to offer distractions, gently point out the red herring and why it’s fallacious, keeping in mind that they might not be aware of their misdirections. Finally, there might be a reason the other person wishes to avoid the topic, so you could choose to move on. There might not be a point in continuing with that particular thread or even the conversation in general.

Single cause

Other names: Causal reductionism, complex cause 

Definition and explanation : The single cause fallacy oversimplifies a complex and nuanced issue into one simple cause. It’s human nature to prefer simple answers to complex ones. But oversimplification can lead us astray. If we are to have any chance at solving problems, we need to fully understand them.  

The single cause fallacy can take many forms, from assigning blame for a problem or giving credit for a solution.   However, it is fallacious because it’s likely that many factors contributed to an outcome. 

How to counter:   Phrases like, “ The reason x happened,” or “ The cause of x is,” are indicators that a single cause fallacy has been committed. However, it’s possible that the single cause fallacy was unintentional, and maybe the other person doesn’t understand the complex nature of the issue. So ask yourself, could there be more to the issue than what is being presented? 

SLippery Slope

Definition and explanation : The slippery slope fallacy argues that an action will lead to a chain of events, resulting in undesirable and often extreme consequences. 

Slippery slope arguments are often used to argue against an issue at hand by diverting attention towards negative and unlikely outcomes. In addition, by presenting the horrible sequence of events as inevitable, the arguer uses appeals to fear or anger to persuade (or manipulate, if it’s done intentionally) without evidence. However, the slippery slope is fallacious because moderate positions don’t necessarily lead to extreme outcomes.

Slippery slope arguments are common in political discourse. They can be quite persuasive, as when our emotions are activated we’re less able to think critically. The good news is that slippery slope arguments are easy to identify and avoid once you learn how they work. 

How to counter : Critical thinking can keep us from going down a slippery slope. To identify a slippery slope fallacy, ask yourself how likely it is that the action at hand will lead to the outcome(s) presented. (Keeping tabs on your emotions is also a useful strategy.) 

Once identified, consider pointing out the fallacy to your opponent, and ask them to justify their conclusion by providing evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, after all.

Definition and explanation : A straw man argument misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to dismiss. The straw man can take many forms, but it often involves distorting, exaggerating, oversimplifying, or taking parts out of context, and  can be quite effective if you’re not paying attention. By building a straw version of the original argument they can more easily knock it down and claim victory. However, it is fallacious because they are attacking a position their opponent doesn’t hold. 

Anti-science arguments often employ straw man fallacies, as it’s much easier to “defeat” strongly supported scientific conclusions when those conclusions are misrepresented.

How to counter: First, consider the possibility that the straw man argument was unintentional, and that the other person doesn’t understand the original argument. Sometimes, however, the straw man is a purposeful attempt to persuade others through deception. Either way, point out the use of the straw man by explaining how their version differs from your original position.

Resources to Learn More

Logically Fallacious Your Logical Fallacy Is Effectiviology: Logical Fallacies: What they are and how to counter them Campus Explorer: 20 Types of Logical Fallacies and Examples

44 thoughts on “Guide to the Most Common Logical Fallacies”

I love ththis kind of analytical explanations and I’m looking forward to more.

Thanks for the compliment, and you’re welcome!

Simplified and very useful article.

Thanks for the kind words. That’s exactly what I was going for. 🙂

Thank you…

I think it would be good to list potential exceptions to these fallacies. Here are a few examples:

Slippery slope – I think there are plenty of occasions where people are quite right to be concerned about one thing leading to another, and there have been examples of it, such as dictators rising to power

Anecdotal – if you’re simply trying to prove that something exists or is possible, rather than common or likely, then your own experience is sufficient proof of that

Appeal to tradition – if arguing against the idea of change for the sake of change, rather than change per se, then I don’t think there’s a great deal wrong with it. Essentially it’s the ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ approach

You’re not wrong: Exceptions would be good additions. In my attempt at keeping things brief I opted to (mostly) leave them out.

Thanks Melanie

The person that wants you to include “exceptions” may have missed out on understanding fallacies of logic. To say, for example, that you are concerned that a bad person will rise to power, or that you personally experienced something are not exceptions AND they are not acts of fallacious thinking.

I think he may be more concerned with these exceptions being labeled as logical fallacies when they might not be.

I can never remember the correct term for the tactic being used when an agitated conversation goes bad. This helps! Thanks!

You’re welcome! 🙂 Melanie

While I don’t necessarily disagree with any of them, the bias in these graphics speak loudly.

Could you explain more? I try to point out fallacies, especially those used to deny science (or reality) or justify pseudoscience, wherever I see them.

Excellent stuff!

This may be another fallacy type: Claiming, “I can always tell when someone is lying!” It correlates with ‘clairvoyance’ type fallacies, though not sure what category.

I would love to use an interactive quiz-type method to practice and hone my critical thinking skills and speed up my fallacy-type identification process! Any recommendations?

Yes! The game Cranky Uncle is a wonderful way to learn and practice recognizing fallacies. It’s specifically focused on the techniques of science denial, but fallacies are fallacies!

It’s also free 🙂 Just go to http://www.CrankyUncle.com and have fun!

Thanks for the comment Melanie

Great post, thanks! I especially like the modern, relevant examples in the cartoons. I have been a practicing scientist for 25 years and I learned things here. Once you recognize these fallacies you see them everywhere (confirmation bias? kidding…). The more I think about it, logic and critical thinking should be incorporated in school curricula starting in early grade school. I very much doubt we’d be in the awful position we find ourselves in now as a society if critical thinking was a 4th pillar of education (in addition to the 3 Rs).

Thanks for the kind words. And I couldn’t agree with you more about teaching critical thinking.

Best Melanie

Why do you need critical thinking when all you have to do is look up what the “experts” tell us to think?

An important component of critical thinking is intellectual humility. Since none of us can possibly know everything, knowing where to find reliable knowledge is essential. Experts, by definition, have the skills and knowledge to understand their area of expertise. If experts all generally agree — ie they have reached a consensus — their conclusion is the most reliable we have at the moment. Not trusting experts, or thinking we can do better than an expert consensus, is a great way to be misled.

Thanks for your comment. Melanie

I love this article so much! One of the best I’ve seen so far. Great and fun graphics. Clear and simplified explanations. Just bookmarked this page! :))))

Thanks so much for the kind words! Do come back to the site to check for new material. 🙂 Melanie

This is nicely done. Sharing it with my kids and grandkids. Thank you!

Thank you for the kind words! Melanie

This would be a lot better if the examples chosen didn’t betray a political bias to one one side.

I don’t disagree with you, I could stand to have more examples from the ideological left. I’m open to suggestions.

Thanks for the comment. Melanie

Is there a place to find actual example in media, YouTube channels or podcasts?

Hi! Thanks for the comment. I’m not sure I’m fully understanding your question, but logical fallacies are ubiquitous. Once you can see them, you can’t “unsee” them.

Brilliant work!

Thanks! 🙂 Melanie

Whoa, great article! Very in depth and I love that responding with kindness is always the first step

Thanks for the kind words! 🙂 Melanie

I agree with Joan, that’s not how fallacies work lol

Pingback: Fallacy / unfair tactic quick guide – Sgt Scholar

Pingback: GTU Globalization's Impact on Developing Economies Essay - Writer Bay

Pingback: GIT The Current Trend in Globalization: Advancing, Stalling, or Retreating Essay - Writer Bay

Pingback: Georgia tech ChatGPT Essay Exercise - Peakassignments.com

Pingback: Top 10 Logical Fallacies We Use Every Day (and How to Spot Them) – The Drunken Skeptic

Pingback: Georgia tech ChatGPT Essay Exercise - quillstudy

Pingback: Anti-LGBTQ+ adults could be making kids more hateful. One crucial antidote could stop this. – LGBTQ Pride Talk

Pingback: Anti-LGBTQ+ adults could be making kids more hateful. One crucial antidote could stop this. – NOTSTRAIGHT News

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic

List of fallacies.

Read this tutorial, which defines the most common fallacies. This list narrows down some of the fallacies in the previous text and is enough to get us started. We will look at a wider sample of fallacies later in this course. For now, focus on defining each fallacy and identifying the differences between the fallacies on the list.

Here are some examples of common fallacies:

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. For example:

Appeal to Ignorance ( ad ignorantiam )

The truth of a claim is established only on the basis of lack of evidence against it. A simple obvious example of this fallacy is to argue that unicorns exist because there is no evidence against such a claim. At first sight, it seems many theories we call scientific involve this fallacy. For example, 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 such as this one, there is evidence for the law, namely positive examples. 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.

Appeal to Pity (a d misericordiam )

When offering an argument, pity is appealed to. Usually this happens when people argue for special treatment on the basis of their need.

For example, a student argues that the teacher should let them 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.

Appeal to Popularity ( ad populum )

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 "favorite."

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 other conditions apart from P 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.

For 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 they give to the question, will inevitably commit themselves 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-centered as you used to be?" no matter whether you answer "yes" or "no," you are bound to admit you were self-centered in the past. Of course, the same question would not count as a fallacy if the presupposition of the question is accepted in the conversational context.

Composition (opposite of division)

The whole is assumed to have the same properties as its parts. Anne may be humorous and fun-loving and an excellent person to invite to the party. The same may be true of Ben, Chris, and David, when 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.

For 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, the colleague's 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 effective, while some of its departments are not. It would be inappropriate to assume they are all effective.

Equivocation

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.

False Dilemma

Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others that are worth considering in the context. For example, "Every person is either my enemy or my friend. If they are my enemy I should hate them. If they are my friend I should love them. So I should either love them or hate them." Obviously, the conclusion is too extreme because most people are neither your enemy nor your friend.

Gambler's Fallacy

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.

Genetic Fallacy

Thinking that because X derives from Y, and Y has a certain property, X must have the same property also.

For example, "His father is a criminal, so he must also be up to no good."

Non Sequitur

A conclusion is drawn which does not follow from the premise. This is not a specific fallacy but a general term for a bad argument. So a lot of the examples above and below can be said to be non sequitur .

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (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 superstitious beliefs commit this fallacy.

Red Herring

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.

Slippery Slope

Arguing that if an opponent were to accept some claim C 1 , then he or she has to accept some other closely related claim C 2 , which in turn commits the opponent to a still further claim C 3 , 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.

For 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 them an implausible position that is easily defeated when this is not actually the opponent's position.

For 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.

Suppressed Evidence

Where there is contradicting evidence, only confirming evidence is presented.

How to teach students to identify logical fallacies

Teaching students about logical fallacies is a vital step to help them become adept critical thinkers. Logical fallacies can occur in our own thinking — when we jump to conclusions — and can also be employed willfully by people arguing in bad faith!

Students who can identify common logical fallacies will have the tools to both build stronger arguments and identify faulty arguments out in the wild. Let’s see just what makes an argument a logical fallacy before delving into some different examples.

What are logical fallacies (and what are they not)?

Logical fallacies are arguments in which the conclusion is the result of faulty reasoning. They are invalid arguments that can nevertheless sound convincing.

Arguments that can simply be disproved by facts are not logical fallacies. Logical fallacies have an error in how the argument is structured. Take these two examples:

Example 1: If you go out without an umbrella, you will get wet.

Example 2: If you go out without an umbrella, you will get wet. Then, you’ll drip water in the hallway, your father will slip on the puddle, and he’ll break his leg!

Although Example 1 isn’t necessarily a convincing argument — it might be sunny outside! — it isn’t a logical fallacy. Example 2, on the other hand, is a classic slippery slope fallacy: The argument advances from a reasonably plausible conclusion to a highly irrational one!

How to identify common logical fallacies

Below are some common logical fallacies that students might encounter, as well as some techniques for identifying them!

Appeal to emotion fallacy

What is the appeal to emotion fallacy.

As the name suggests, the appeal to emotion fallacy is an argument that relies on stirring up an emotional response in its audience to compensate for the lack of sound reasoning. You’ll find this fallacy everywhere, from over-sentimental advertisements to political rhetoric.

Inspiring emotion in your audience isn’t always a bad thing, of course. But when it is used in lieu of decent arguments, it can cloud the listener’s judgment.

How to identify an appeal to emotion fallacy

Sometimes outright appeals to emotion are easy to spot. Take this example of a politician’s expressive language:

“If my opponent wins, dark days are ahead. But vote for me and you will be able to breathe easy again!”

Metaphors, analogies, and evocative imagery are often used to appeal to our emotions but can be misleading if they aren’t backed up with facts and data.

Likewise, arguments based on anecdotal evidence or imaginative storytelling often rely on the appeal to emotion. We naturally empathize with the characters in stories, but students should be wary of generalizing arguments based on emotive responses!

Appeal to authority fallacy

What is the appeal to authority fallacy?

Appeals to authority fallacies leverage the supposed authority of a third party to persuade an audience. Often, the accredited authority is questionable or downright irrelevant to the point being made.

Take the example:

“My teacher has a PhD in Education and she says you shouldn’t drink coffee because it’s bad for your health.”

In this case, the speaker is not only failing to provide any argument for why coffee is bad for your health but also the supposed authority doesn’t have any expertise in this subject!

How to identify an appeal to authority fallacy

Students should first identify whether the argument relies on the authority of the person invoked. If so, they should assess the credibility of the given authority. Authorities given anonymously such as “scientists” or “experts” are a particularly bright red flag!

When writing essays (or claims on Kialo Edu), students should properly cite sources so that any appeals to authority that they make can be checked by readers. Students should be able to justify their choice of references and practice investigating claims accredited to others, to better avoid fallacious appeals to authority.

False cause fallacy

What is the false cause fallacy.

The false cause fallacy occurs when one incorrectly assumes a causal connection between two events. Take this example: 

“Every time I wear these socks, I get a great result on my test! So these socks must be lucky.”

Here, the speaker is drawing a causal link between the socks and the test results without any proof.

The false cause fallacy is captured in the academic adage “correlation is not causation.” After all, there are all kinds of funny and random correlations that exist!

How to identify the false cause fallacy

Students should be on the lookout for claims of a causal relationship between two events when there isn’t conclusive proof that one causes the other. They should be particularly dubious in cases where there isn’t even an attempt to explain the process by which the first event influenced the second.

When talking about possible causal relationships, students should use qualifiers like “might,” “may,” and “could” to acknowledge that there isn’t a proven connection. These arguments will be stronger since they avoid the false cause fallacy!

Slippery slope fallacy

What is the slippery slope fallacy?

The slippery slope fallacy suggests that once a particular thing happens, it will inevitably lead to something worse. Often, an initially innocuous event leads to potentially catastrophic consequences, as in the example given earlier that going outside without an umbrella will lead to your father breaking his leg!

How to identify the slippery slope fallacy

To identify the slippery slope fallacy, students should investigate whether a predicted chain of events is justified. Slippery slope arguments often also rely on the appeal to emotion, playing on the audience’s fear of the more extreme consequences.

Being clear-headed about the difference between the necessary and potential consequences of an event can help avoid making fallacious slippery slope arguments.

Straw man fallacy

What is the straw man fallacy.

The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting the opposing position so one can argue easier against it — that is, creating a “straw man” that is easily knocked down. Let’s look at an example:

Student 1: I think school uniforms are good because they help build school spirit.

Student 2: So you think students shouldn’t be able to express their individuality and should all think the same thing?

In this case, Student 2 has completely misrepresented Student 1’s argument in order to make their position against school uniforms seem stronger.

How to identify the straw man fallacy

To identify a straw man fallacy, students should recognize when an argument misrepresents or oversimplifies the opposing view. This also helps students avoid making straw man fallacies when they acknowledge and listen to opposing arguments, even if they are in disagreement. 

When defending a particular position, students should try to consider the “steel man” argument against their point. To create convincing arguments, students should try to refute the strongest possible counter-argument.

We hope you found this overview of some of the most common logical fallacies useful. Helping students to build clear, well-reasoned arguments is something we’re passionate about at Kialo Edu. Our platform’s argument-mapping structure is designed to help students visualize and develop complex arguments, making it easier to avoid errors in thinking, from logical fallacies to cognitive bias .

If you’ve used Kialo Edu to teach logical fallacies, we’d love to hear from you! Reach out on any of our social media pages, or contact us at [email protected] .

Want to try Kialo Edu with your class?

Sign up for free and use Kialo Edu to have thoughtful classroom discussions and train students’ argumentation and critical thinking skills.

Passion doesn’t always come easily. Discover your inner drive and find your true purpose in life.

From learning how to be your best self to navigating life’s everyday challenges.

Discover peace within today’s chaos. Take a moment to notice what’s happening now.

Gain inspiration from the lives of celebrities. Explore their stories for motivation and insight into achieving your dreams.

Where ordinary people become extraordinary, inspiring us all to make a difference.

Take a break with the most inspirational movies, TV shows, and books we have come across.

From being a better partner to interacting with a coworker, learn how to deepen your connections.

Take a look at the latest diet and exercise trends coming out. So while you're working hard, you're also working smart.

Sleep may be the most powerful tool in our well-being arsenal. So why is it so difficult?

Challenges can stem from distractions, lack of focus, or unclear goals. These strategies can help overcome daily obstacles.

Unlocking your creativity can help every aspect of your life, from innovation to problem-solving to personal growth.

How do you view wealth? Learn new insights, tools and strategies for a better relationship with your money.

9 Logical Fallacies That You Need to Know To Master Critical Thinking

When you learn about logic, language becomes a game you can win..

William James, who was known as the grandfather of psychology, once said: “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” All of us think, every day. But there’s a difference between thinking for thinking’s sake, and thinking in a critical way. Deliberate, controlled, and reasonable thinking is rare.

There are multiple factors that are impairing people’s ability to think critically, from technology to changes in education. Some experts have speculated we’re approaching a crisis of critical thinking , with many students graduating “without the ability to construct a cohesive argument or identify a logical fallacy.”

RELATED: How to Tell if ‘Political Correctness’ Is Hurting Your Mental Health

That's a worrying trend, as critical thinking isn’t only an academic skill, but essential to living a high-functioning life. It’s the process by which to arrive at logical conclusions. And in through that process, logical fallacies are a significant hazard.

This article will explore logical fallacies in order to equip you with the knowledge on how to think in skillful ways, for the biggest benefits. As a result, you'll be able to detect deception of flawed logic, in others, and yourself. And you'll be equipped to think proper thoughts, rather than simply rearrange prejudices.

What Is a Logical Fallacy?

The study of logic originates back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 b.c.e), who started to systematically identify and list logical fallacies. The origin of logic is linked to the Greek logos , which translates to language, reason, or discourse. Logical fallacies are errors of reason that invalidate an argument. The use of logical fallacies changes depending on a person’s intention. Although for many, they’re unintentional, others may deliberately use logical fallacies as a type of manipulative behavior .

Detecting logical fallacies is crucial to improve your level of critical thinking, to avoid deceit, and to spot poor reasoning; within yourself and others. The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant once said; “All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.”

RELATED: Fundamental Attribution Error: Definition & Examples

Throughout history, the world’s greatest thinkers have promoted the value of reasoning. Away from academia, reason is the ability to logically process information, and arrive at an accurate conclusion, in the quest for truth. Striving to be more reasonable or calm under pressure is a virtuous act. It’s a noble pursuit, one which in its nature will inspire your personal development, and allow you to become the best version of yourself.

Why Critical Thinking Is Important

It seems like humanity has never been so polarized, separated into different camps and stances; Democrats vs. Liberals, vegans vs. meat eaters, vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, pro-life vs. pro-choice. There’s nothing inherently wrong with thinking critically, and taking a stand. However, what is unusual is the tendency for people to lean into one extreme or the other, neglecting to explore gray areas or complexity.

Many of the positions people take are chosen for them. It takes a lot of effort to research a point of view. And even then, we’re faced with the challenge of information overload, fake news, conspiracy, and even credible news which is dismissed as conspiracy. Far from academic debates or politicians facing off during leadership races, the ability to share respectful dialogue is an essential part of understanding our place in the world, and maintaining human relationships.

The hot topics facing humanity aren’t going to be resolved by reactivity or over-emotionality . There should be room for all sorts of emotions to surface; it’s understandable to feel anger, grief, anxiety, etc, faced with global events. But critical thinking asks for a more reasoned, calm consideration, not getting completely carried away with emotions, but appealing to higher judgment.

Examples of When to Use Critical Thinking

It’s not always clear why critical thinking is so valuable. Isn’t it only useful for education, philosophy, science, or politics? Not quite. When applied appropriately, logic has a universal appeal in life. Examples include:

• Problem-solving : “The problem is not that there are problems,” wrote psychiatrist Theodore Isaac Rubin, “the problem is expecting otherwise, and thinking that having problems is a problem.” Life is full of problems. Fortunately, that means life is full of opportunities to problem solve. Critical thinking is an essential problem-solving skill, from managing your time to organizing your finances.
• Making optimal decisions : the more logical you are, and the less you fall into logical fallacies, the better your decision-making becomes . Decisions are the steps towards your goals, each decision making you closer to, or away from, what you really desire.
• Understanding complex subjects : with attention spans reducing due to social media and technology, it’s becoming rare to take time to attempt to understand complex topics, away from repeating what others have said. Whether through self-study or to comprehend global events, critical thinking is essential to understand complexity.
• Improving relationships : adding a dose of logic to your interactions will allow you to make better choices in relationships. Many “messy” forms of communication, from guilt-tripping to passive aggression, are illogical. By tapping into a more balanced point of view, you’ll better overcome conflict, argue your point (when necessary), or explain the way you feel.

The Most Common Logical Fallacies

When you begin to explore logical fallacies, language becomes a game. There’s a sense of having a cheat sheet in communication, understanding the underlying dynamics at play. Of course, it’s not as straightforward as a mechanical understanding — emotional intelligence, and non-verbal body language has a role to play, too. We’re humans, not computers. But gaining mastery of logic puts you ahead of the majority of people, and helps you avoid cognitive bias.

What’s more, most people fall into logical fallacies without being aware. Once you can detect these mechanisms, within yourself and with others, you’ll have an upper hand in many key areas of life, not least in a professional setting, or in any place you need to persuade or argue a point. The list is ever-growing and vast, but below are the most common logical fallacies to get the ball rolling:

1. Ad Hominem

Originating from a Latin phrase meaning “to the person,” ad hominem is an attack on the person, not the argument. This has a twofold impact — it deflects attention away from the validity of the argument, and second, it can provoke the person to enter a defensive mindset. If you’re aware of this fallacy, it can keep you from taking the bait, and instead keeping the focus on the argument.

Perhaps the most popular example of this in recent times is the viral interview between Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman. Love him or hate him, Peterson is an embodiment of logic, sidestepping Newman’s ad hominem attacks and fallacies in a calm and controlled manner. 

2. Red Herring

You might have heard of this phrase in the context of fiction: a red herring is an irrelevant piece of information thrown into the mix, in order to distract from other relevant details, commonly used in detective stories. In a political context, you might see a politician respond to criticism by talking about something positive they’ve done. For example, when asked why unemployment is so high, they may say “we’ve made a lot of effort to improve working conditions in certain areas.”

A popular type of red herring in modern discourse is "what aboutism," a form of counter-accusation. If the person mentioning unemployment is a fellow politician, the same politician may say: “what about unemployment rates when your party was in charge?”

3. Tu Quoque Fallacy

Closely related to the above, and in some ways, a mixture of the ad hominem and a red herring, is the tu quoque fallacy (pronounced tu-KWO-kway and originating from the Latin “you too”). This is a counter-accusation that accuses someone of hypocrisy. Rather than acknowledging what's been said, someone responds with a direct allegation. For example, if you’re in an argument and your partner raises their voice, you may bring that to their attention, only for them to say: “you raise your voice all the time!”.

4. Straw Man

The straw man logical fallacy is everywhere, especially in dialogue on hot-topic issues, because it's effective in shutting down someone else’s perspective. The person runs with someone’s point, exaggerates it, then attacks the exaggerated version — the straw man — seemingly in an appropriate way. For example, when your partner asks if you could do the washing up, you might respond: “are you saying I don’t support you around the house? That’s unfair.”

On the global stage, one of the big straw man arguments in recent times is the rhetoric of the anti-vaxxer, applied to resistance to mandated vaccines, social distancing, or lockdowns. The simplified term is a way of positioning someone as extreme, even if raising valid points, or looking to open dialogue about the repercussions of certain political choices, made without the option for the population to have their say.

5. Appeal to Authority

If someone in a position of authority says something is true, it must be true. This type of logical fallacy is ingrained in the psyche in childhood, where your parents' (or adults around you) word was final. Society is moving increasingly in this direction, especially in the fields of science. But that doesn’t come without risk, as even experts are known not to get things right. 

In addition, many positions of authority aren’t always acting in pursuit of honesty or truth, if other factors (such as financial donations) have influence. While appeals to authority used to gravitate around religious leaders, a 2022 study found that, when linked with scientists, untrue statements are more likely to be believed, in what researchers call the Einstein effect .

6. False Dichotomy

Also known as the false dilemma, this logical fallacy presents limited options in certain scenarios in a way that is inaccurate. It’s closely linked to black-or-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking, presenting two extremes without options in between. This is perhaps one of the most invasive logical fallacies in navigating life’s demands. For example, you either go to the gym or become unhealthy.

These limitations require a dose of psychological flexibility and creative thinking to overcome. They require exploring other alternatives. In the example above, that would mean looking at other ways to become healthy and exercise, such as running outdoors or going swimming.

7. Slippery Slope Fallacy

Similar to the straw man fallacy, the slippery slope is a way of taking an issue to a hypothetical extreme and then dismissing it based on what could happen. The potential of one thing leading to another, and the repercussions of that chain of events, may cause the original issue to be overlooked. For example, if you fail to set a boundary in one situation, you’ll forever be stuck in accepting certain behaviors.

The issue with this fallacy is that a valid process of critical thinking is to look at what decisions can lead to in the future. Rather than dismiss outright, however, it pays to make reasoned decisions, avoid jumping to conclusions, and see how things unfold over time.

8. Sunk Cost Fallacy

This is the logical fallacy that, when having already invested in something, you continue to invest in order to get return on your sunk costs. Although using gambling terminology (such as chasing losses on roulette) the sunk cost can apply to any area of life. The investment itself doesn’t have to be financial. For example, investing lots of time and energy into a creative project, or a relationship.

The sunk cost fallacy causes people to overlook a true and accurate analysis of the situation in the present moment, instead choosing to continue because of past decisions.

9. Hasty Generalisation

Also known as an over-generalization or faulty generalization, this logical fallacy makes general claims based on little evidence. Before writing this article, I went to a new gym, where my toiletry bag was stolen. You could argue it’s bad luck for something like that to happen on your first visit. If I decide that the gym isn’t safe, and make a hasty generalization, I may end up not going again. But what if the rate of theft in this gym was below the average in the city, and I was just unlucky? What if it wasn’t stolen, but someone absent-mindedly put it in their bag?

The opposite of a hasty generalization is to find the appropriate context for events. A logical conclusion, on the other hand, takes time. It’s reasonable, doesn’t jump in, and collects as much data as possible. If I go to the same gym, and something else is stolen, and I then see in Google reviews that others have had the same, it’d be logical for me to conclude there’s a high rate of theft.

How to Detect and Overcome Logical Fallacies

Both logic and critical thinking can be improved with practice. The knowledge of the nature of logical fallacies, and the above examples, will get you started. Deciphering when certain fallacies are active in real time is part of applied learning. Be conscious of applying the same level of rigor to your own level of reason as you do others.

There are a few components to detect and overcome logical fallacies. The first is self-awareness. As mentioned above, we’re humans, not machines. In situations where the stakes are high, we’re usually driven by factors other than logic, ulterior motives, or strong emotions that run the show. How often, when angry or triggered, do you say or act in ways you later regret?

Emotional regulation is useful in being calm enough to engage in critical thinking. But at times, logic isn’t the most skillful. For example, in conflict with a loved one, it’s more important to attempt to have compassion and understanding than to be the “most logical.” Sometimes, there are factors outside of reason that influence us, matters of the heart that can’t be captured, defined, or deconstructed by the mind.

Knowing how to apply logic, and when, is a vital skill. Through practice, over time, you’ll cultivate an even greater virtue — wisdom. A precious commodity in short supply, if you’re able to achieve wisdom and reason, the world is your oyster, a positive slippery slope to supercharge your growth.

KEEP READING

What is cognitive bias how to wave goodbye to mental distortions, hot stories, man works at walmart deli - shocks the world when he qualifies for the olympics, bride is sad her mom will never meet her future husband - then falls in love with this man, white woman was afraid of her black colleague - 73 years later, they fought for their love and are happily married, 14-year-old is told to abort pregnancy - now her baby’s a harvard-trained doctor, dan lok | my hero is my teacher, they were sent to the principals office for kissing on the school bus - 77 years later, a phone call changes everything, woman poses a question to dads online - video "backfired" for all the wrong reasons.

Women's Rights TikToker Gets Backlash After This Video

In the age of social media, thought-provoking questions can spark intense debates and emotional responses. Amanda Sharp is a hobbyist women's rights activist, and frequently uses TikTok to post her unique takes on the troubles women face in modern society.

Recently, Sharp posted a video on TikTok and found herself at the center of a storm when she posed a controversial question about safety and trust. Her video quickly went viral, drawing both support and criticism. But in the rush to respond, did her critics miss the deeper point she was trying to make?

A Provocative Question

Amanda Sharp's viral video featured a stark and unsettling question:

"Dads with daughters, would you rather have your little daughter be in the woods with a bear or a man? Maybe asking it this way will allow men some extra perspective of what women are saying because ask yourself this, and show me that you're not emotional about having to make that decision. That if your little girl's life depended on it and you had to choose one, the bear or the man, which would you choose? And I think your answer can absolutely make other men who just are so oblivious to what women are saying now understand."

Sharp's intent was clear — to highlight the pervasive fear and lack of trust women often feel towards unfamiliar men. By framing the question in such a stark manner, she hoped to provoke a deeper understanding among men about the anxieties women face. Unfortunately, it had the opposite effect.

Her Video "Backfired"

The internet's reaction was swift and harsh. Many TikTok users took to the comments to express their outrage, with some stating, "You shouldn't have access to children if you think this is a logical argument," and others simply questioning the rationale behind the choice: "The man. What kind of question is this?" With over 17K comments, it's safe to say the backlash was intense, with many accusing Sharp of fear-mongering and presenting an illogical scenario.

But was the criticism justified? Or were her detractors missing the underlying message?

Watch Amanda Sharp's Video

@amandaannsharp Say it louder and differently for the men in the back! Would you rather have your daughter in the woods with a man or bear. Your choice. #manorbear #bearorman #wouldyourather #daddydaughter #daughters #sayitlouder

Did Her Critics Miss The Point?

At its core, Amanda Sharp's question wasn't about literally choosing a bear over a man. It was an ethical and emotional probe designed to make fathers — and men in general — confront an uncomfortable truth. While of course, a parent's natural instinct would be to choose a human over a wild animal, the very hesitation and discomfort in making that choice reflect a broader societal issue: the mistrust and fear women often experience regarding their safety around men they do not know.

Sharp's video aimed to shine a light on the lived reality of many women. The point was not to suggest that a bear would be a safer option, but to illustrate the profound discomfort and fear that can arise even at the thought of a young girl alone with an unknown man. By posing such an extreme question, Sharp hoped to evoke empathy and understanding, encouraging men to recognize the severity of the issue.

The angry comments and backlash suggest that many viewers focused on the literal aspect of the question, missing the ethical dilemma Sharp was presenting. The real question she posed was about understanding and empathy, challenging men to think deeply about the fears and vulnerabilities women face daily.

Don't Be Afraid To Ask The Wrong Question

Amanda Sharp's viral video, despite the backlash, serves as an important conversation starter. It highlights the need for greater awareness and understanding of the fears and challenges women face in a society where trust can often be a luxury. By provoking such a strong reaction, Sharp succeeded in bringing a critical issue to the forefront of public discourse.

In the end, her question wasn't about choosing between a bear or a man; it was about recognizing the pervasive sense of danger and mistrust that many women live with. It was a call to action for men to acknowledge these fears and work towards creating a safer, more understanding world. Her critics may have missed the point, but the conversation she started is one worth continuing.

Woman Can’t Afford Rent - So She Moves in With Her 94-Year-Old Nonna

Man notices stranger's car was about to get a ticket - his response goes insanely viral, parents get trapped under car in tornado storm - their 9-year-old jumps into action, mom deliberately "ignored" her husband and kids to win race - and people are cheering, how tiffany haddish finally found the love she deserved, the disturbing and beautiful story behind danny trejo's salma hayek tattoo, the kardashian redemption - an uncensored documentary, how did betrayal connect jennifer aniston and selena gomez, subscribe to our newsletter, usher opens up on diddy's flavor camp, the great takedown of nickelodeon’s dan schneider - how even small voices have the power for impact, chris gardner beyond the pursuit of happyness: the work begins, 100 powerful motivational quotes to help you rise above, teen wins $40k scholarship - decides to give it all back for this reason.

Teen Wins $40K Scholarship But Gives It to Students In Need

Getting an education and strong grades are definitely important, and those values were certainly ones that a teen named Verda Annan grew up with. But she was also raised to understand the importance of community and giving back, so when she saw an opportunity to make an incredible difference in someone else’s life, she rose to the occasion.

A Surprise Donation

Woman sits down on a talk show with Steve Harvey

YouTube/Steve TV Show

At her high school graduation, 18-year-old Verda Annan had a lot to look forward to. She had just received a full ride to Harvard, and she had just accepted a $40,000 scholarship to help her pay for additional expenses.

But as she sat there, listening to her assistant principal give a speech, she really resonated with some of his ideas.

“It reminded me of a lot of the principles and values I was taught by mom and siblings and community in Ghana,” Annan recalled to Steve Harvey . “He talked about integrity and doing the right thing and kindness, all of these things that are just so right.”

Immediately, Annan knew the right thing to do would be to give the scholarship back and ask that it be used toward someone who needed it more. So she got up, returned to the mic, and asked for a couple of minutes of everyone’s time.

“I am so very grateful for this, but I also know that I am not the one who needs this the most,” she told the crowd. “Knowing my mom went to community college and how much that was helpful, I would be so very grateful if the administration would consider giving the general excellence award to someone who is going to the community college. It is such a great honor, but I also know I am not the most in need of it.”

Paying it Forward

Sitting down with Steve Harvey for his talk show, Annan explained that she had gotten to know her peers very well over her four years at the high school and knew that the money could help them achieve their dreams as well.

“I’ve gotten to know firsthand how strong they are but also how much there is a struggle and a need in the community, which is low-income and very diverse,” she explained. She added that, after coming to America from Ghana at the age of eight, her family had always instilled the importance of education but also opportunity and kindness .

“My mom always let us know education is one of our strongest tools to get us out of poverty,” she said. “[But] beyond grades, do things that are good. And not just for yourself.”

The 18-year-old cited how, earlier in her high school education, she had helped to create a community program for newcomers coming to the school for the first time, based on a need she saw.

“Keep your eyes open, what does the community need, what do people need to make their lives better and then go out of your way to do that, everyone can do that,” she added.

Inspiring Others

According to Annan, the school administration was unsure what to do with the $40,000 scholarship. So, they created a committee, and now the scholarship has been divided into $10,000 scholarships to help four students go to community college.

“Those students are students who kind of needed it, are very much deserving of it, great students of integrity and academics, and I’m so proud of that,” Annan said.

Annan's act affected more than those four students, though: it also inspired others to create change. Another donor decided to match the $40K, creating the opportunity for four more students to attend college the following year.

Meanwhile, another local charity heard what Annan did and was inspired. So it created a separate scholarship for community college students, too.

“I want to be someone who makes a difference in life,” Annan added. “I want to get the education and be in that place to help somebody else.”

Creating Lasting Change

Stories like Annan’s give everyone hope for the next generation and the belief that these kids will continue to create positivity in their corners of the world. But this story is also so beautiful because it reminds us how much one small act can ignite and inspire myriad others.

By standing up for change, making a donation, volunteering your time, or looking around your community to see how you can improve someone else’s life, you’re doing something good for someone else. That alone is amazing, but your act may also inspire others to do the same, which in turn creates a better community for us all.

Copyright © 2024 Goalcast

Get stories worth sharing delivered to your inbox

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Common Critical Thinking Fallacies

Critical thinking is the process of reaching a decision or judgment by analyzing, evaluating, and reasoning with facts and data presented. However, nobody is thinking critically 100% of the time. Logical reasoning can be prone to fallacies.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning. When there is a fallacy in the reasoning, conclusions are less credible and can be deemed invalid.

How can critical thinking fallacies be avoided? The first step is to be aware of the possible fallacies that can be committed. This article will highlight the most common logical fallacies.

Common fallacies fall under two categories:

• Fallacies of Relevance
• Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises

For fallacies of relevance, reasons are presented why a certain conclusion is reached, but these reasons may not be entirely true nor significant to the argument.

Under Fallacies of Relevance are:

“Ad Hominem” is Latin for “to the person”. It’s a fallacy that uses attacks on the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

This is commonly seen in informal arguments where a person’s looks or characteristics are often attacked instead of the argument they’re making.

• Red Herring

This is a fallacy of distraction. It sidetracks the main argument by offering a different issue and then claims that this new issue is relevant to the current one. People who do this aim to divert the audience or another person from their arguments.

• Tu Quoque Fallacy

“Tu Quoque” means “you also” in Latin. This fallacy discredits a person’s argument based on the fact that the person does not practice what he or she preaches.

• Strawman Fallacy

Where a person refutes another person’s argument by presenting a weakened version of the original argument.

• Appeal to Authority

Appeal to Authority fallacy claims that an argument is true because someone who has the “authority” on the subject believes that it’s true. For example, a policeman believes that guns should not have permits. This argument should be accepted as the truth because policemen know what they are talking about. Policemen know how to use guns properly, therefore can be called “experts” to the subject matter.

• Appeal to Popularity or Ad Populum

Much like the previous fallacy, Appeal to Popularity claims that something is true because a lot of people or the majority believe that it’s true. We should steer clear of this fallacy because having 100,000 believers doesn’t make a wrong argument true.

This is commonly used in advertising products. If a good number of people are using the product, why shouldn’t you?

• Appeal to Tradition

This is very similar to appeal to popularity. The only difference is that this fallacy claims that something is true because it has been believed to be true for a long time. It doesn’t depend on how many believe on it, but rather on how long people have believed it.

• Appeal to Ignorance or Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

This fallacy claims that arguments are true because they have never been proven false or are false because they have never been proven to be true. It suggests that the best solution is to remain ignorant about the situation.

• Appeal to Emotion

As the name suggests, one of the critical thinking fallacies appeal to the emotions of the audience. It aims to evoke feelings like sympathy and affection – both of which can be irrelevant to the original arguments.

• Fallacy of Composition and Division

The fallacy of composition claims that because some parts of the whole are true, that means the whole must be true. The fallacy of division claims that because the whole is true, all parts of the whole must be true.

An example for composition is that just because with Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant are in Golden State and they are good, they will win championships for sure.

An example for division is: “On average, men tend to have longer legs than women. So, this means that Maria has shorter legs than Jerry.” This is false because for all we know, Maria might have longer legs than Jerry.

• Equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation uses key words in an ambiguous way. The key words will mean different when used in one claim and then when used in another claim.

For example, Poppy claims that she has the right to watch whatever she wants to watch. Therefore, it’s just right that she watches television all day.

Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises on the other hand, introduces premises that are somehow relevant, but doesn’t completely support the conclusions for the argument.

Under Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises are:

• False Dichotomy

This fallacy says that there are only two available options and only one of them are correct. In short, it creates a black or white choice. Both cannot be correct, and they are the only possible options.

• Begging the Question

This critical thinking fallacy assumes that the premise under examination is true. It uses this assumed true premise to support other statements.

• Slippery Slope

Slippery Slope claims that when one step is taken, it will snowball into something bigger very quickly. For example, Joe argues that if Maria will stop using straws, the economy will fall very fast.

• Hasty Generalizations

This fallacy creates generalizations from hurried samples. The generalizations might have been made based on a small sample only or a sample that doesn’t entirely represent something properly.

Knowing and studying fallacies is important because this will help people avoid committing them. The presence of critical thinking fallacies weakens and invalidates arguments, so it’s best to steer clear from them.

When someone knows how to identify these fallacies, it will be easier to point out invalid arguments by other people as well. We live in a world where fallacies are often used in arguments – in fact, up to 13 fallacies were already listed and studied in Ancient Greece thousands of years ago.

This is just a testament that these fallacies have existed before and continue to exist now, so we must be aware of them.

You may also like

Which Part of the Brain is Related to Critical Thinking?

The brain is a complex organ divided into many, many different regions and subregions. While we are far from understanding the brain’s […]

The Psychology Behind Critical Thinking: Understanding the Mental Processes Involved

Critical thinking is an essential skill that enables individuals to analyze, evaluate, and interpret information effectively. It is a cognitive process that […]

Divergent Thinking Tools: Unleashing Your Creative Potential

Divergent thinking is an essential component of creativity and problem-solving. It involves generating a wide range of ideas and potential solutions in […]

The Connection between Associative Thinking and Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Link

Associative thinking is a cognitive process that involves connecting seemingly unrelated concepts to generate new ideas. This type of thinking is essential […]

Have a thesis expert improve your writing

Check your thesis for plagiarism in 10 minutes, generate your apa citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Logical Fallacies | Definition, Types, List & Examples

Logical Fallacies | Definition, Types, List & Examples

Published on 20 April 2023 by Kassiani Nikolopoulou . Revised on 9 October 2023.

A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others.

Because logical fallacies can be deceptive, it is important to be able to spot them in your own argumentation and that of others.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Logical fallacy list (free download), what is a logical fallacy, types of logical fallacy, what are common logical fallacies, logical fallacy examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about logical fallacies.

There are many logical fallacies. You can download an overview of the most common logical fallacies by clicking the blue button.

Logical fallacy list (Google Docs)

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that occurs when invalid arguments or irrelevant points are introduced without any evidence to support them. People often resort to logical fallacies when their goal is to persuade others. Because fallacies appear to be correct even though they are not, people can be tricked into accepting them.

The majority of logical fallacies involve arguments—in other words, one or more statements (called the premise ) and a conclusion . The premise is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion.

There are two types of mistakes that can occur in arguments:

• A factual error in the premises . Here, the mistake is not one of logic. A premise can be proven or disproven with facts. For example, If you counted 13 people in the room when there were 14, then you made a factual mistake.
• The premises fail to logically support the conclusion . A logical fallacy is usually a mistake of this type. In the example above, the students never proved that English 101 was itself a useless course—they merely “begged the question” and moved on to the next part of their argument, skipping the most important part.

In other words, a logical fallacy violates the principles of critical thinking because the premises do not sufficiently support the conclusion, while a factual error involves being wrong about the facts.

There are several ways to label and classify fallacies, such as according to the psychological reasons that lead people to use them or according to similarity in their form. Broadly speaking, there are two main types of logical fallacy, depending on what kind of reasoning error the argument contains:

Informal logical fallacies

Formal logical fallacies.

An informal logical fallacy occurs when there is an error in the content of an argument (i.e., it is based on irrelevant or false premises).

Informal fallacies can be further subdivided into groups according to similarity, such as relevance (informal fallacies that raise an irrelevant point) or ambiguity (informal fallacies that use ambiguous words or phrases, the meanings of which change in the course of discussion).

“ 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.”

A formal logical fallacy occurs when there is an error in the logical structure of an argument.

Premise 2: The citizens of New York know that Spider-Man saved their city.

Conclusion: The citizens of New York know that Peter Parker saved their city.  

This argument is invalid, because even though Spider-Man is in fact Peter Parker, the citizens of New York don’t necessarily know Spider-Man’s true identity and therefore don’t necessarily know that Peter Parker saved their city.

A logical fallacy may arise in any form of communication, ranging from debates to writing, but it may also crop up in our own internal reasoning. Here are some examples of common fallacies that you may encounter in the media, in essays, and in everyday discussions.

Red herring logical fallacy

The red herring fallacy is the deliberate attempt to mislead and distract an audience by bringing up an unrelated issue to falsely oppose the issue at hand. Essentially, it is an attempt to change the subject and divert attention elsewhere.

Bandwagon logical fallacy

The bandwagon logical fallacy (or ad populum fallacy ) occurs when we base the validity of our argument on how many people believe or do the same thing as we do. In other words, we claim that something must be true simply because it is popular.

This fallacy can easily go unnoticed in everyday conversations because the argument may sound reasonable at first. However, it doesn’t factor in whether or not “everyone” who claims x is in fact qualified to do so.

Straw man logical fallacy

The straw man logical fallacy is the distortion of an opponent’s argument to make it easier to refute. By exaggerating or simplifying someone’s position, one can easily attack a weak version of it and ignore their real argument.

Person 2: “So you are fine with children taking ecstasy and LSD?”

Slippery slope logical fallacy

The slippery slope logical fallacy occurs when someone asserts that a relatively small step or initial action will lead to a chain of events resulting in a drastic change or undesirable outcome. However, no evidence is offered to prove that this chain reaction will indeed happen.

Hasty generalisation logical fallacy

The hasty generalisation fallacy (or jumping to conclusions ) occurs when we use a small sample or exceptional cases to draw a conclusion or generalise a rule.

A false dilemma (or either/or fallacy ) is a common persuasion technique in advertising. It presents us with only two possible options without considering the broad range of possible alternatives.

In other words, the campaign suggests that animal testing and child mortality are the only two options available. One has to save either animal lives or children’s lives.

People often confuse correlation (i.e., the fact that two things happen one after the other or at the same time) with causation (the fact that one thing causes the other to happen).

It’s possible, for example, that people with MS have lower vitamin D levels because of their decreased mobility and sun exposure, rather than the other way around.

It’s important to carefully account for other factors that may be involved in any observed relationship. The fact that two events or variables are associated in some way does not necessarily imply that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between them and cannot tell us the direction of any cause-and-effect relationship that does exist.

If you want to know more about fallacies , research bias , or AI tools , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• Sunk cost fallacy
• Straw man fallacy
• Slippery slope fallacy
• Red herring fallacy
• Ecological fallacy

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Framing bias
• Cognitive bias
• Optimism bias
• Hawthorne effect

An ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”) is a type of informal logical fallacy . Instead of arguing against a person’s position, an ad hominem argument attacks the person’s character or actions in an effort to discredit them.

This rhetorical strategy is fallacious because a person’s character, motive, education, or other personal trait is logically irrelevant to whether their argument is true or false.

Name-calling is common in ad hominem fallacy (e.g., “environmental activists are ineffective because they’re all lazy tree-huggers”).

An appeal to ignorance (ignorance here meaning lack of evidence) is a type of informal logical fallacy .

It asserts that something must be true because it hasn’t been proven false—or that something must be false because it has not yet been proven true.

For example, “unicorns exist because there is no evidence that they don’t.” The appeal to ignorance is also called the burden of proof fallacy .

People sometimes confuse cognitive bias and logical fallacies because they both relate to flawed thinking. However, they are not the same:

• Cognitive bias is the tendency to make decisions or take action in an illogical way because of our values, memory, socialization, and other personal attributes. In other words, it refers to a fixed pattern of thinking rooted in the way our brain works.
• Logical fallacies relate to how we make claims and construct our arguments in the moment. They are statements that sound convincing at first but can be disproven through logical reasoning.

In other words, cognitive bias refers to an ongoing predisposition, while logical fallacy refers to mistakes of reasoning that occur in the moment.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Nikolopoulou, K. (2023, October 09). Logical Fallacies | Definition, Types, List & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 31 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/logical-fallacies/

Is this article helpful?

Kassiani Nikolopoulou

Other students also liked, slippery slope fallacy | definition & examples, what is a red herring fallacy | definition & examples, what is straw man argument | definition & examples, still have questions.

• Kindle Store
• Kindle eBooks
• Business & Money

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

Buy for others

Buying and sending ebooks to others.

• Select quantity
• Buy and send eBooks
• Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

The Art of Critical Thinking, Logic, & Problem Solving: 15 Everyday Exercises to Enhance Your Cognitive Potential, Conquer Logical Fallacies, & Polish ... Work & Life (Emotional Resilience Book 3) Kindle Edition

4 Free Bonuses With Your Purchase, To Enhance Your Critical Thinking Skills Even Further! If you’ve always wanted to sharpen your critical thinking skills, conquer logical fallacies, and make better decisions, but struggle to find effective methods, then keep reading…

Are you sick and tired of feeling overwhelmed by complex problems, unable to navigate through them with clarity and confidence?

Have you tried endless other solutions, only to find yourself right back where you started after a few weeks?

Do you finally want to say goodbye to sacrificing your time and energy on ineffective strategies, and discover something that truly works for you?

If so, then you’ve come to the right place.

You see, mastering the art of critical thinking, logic, and problem-solving doesn’t have to be difficult .

Even if you’ve tried other solutions that didn’t quite hit the mark.

In fact, it’s easier than you think.

Studies from reputable sources such as scientific journals and newspapers have demonstrated that incorporating specific exercises into your routine can significantly enhance your cognitive abilities and decision-making skills.

And another study revealed how conquering logical fallacies can lead to more successful outcomes in both your professional and personal life.

Which means you can unlock your full cognitive potential without sacrificing your time or energy.

Here’s just a tiny fraction of what you’ll discover in "The Art Of Critical Thinking, Logic, & Problem-Solving":

• The 15 Most Essential Exercises to Supercharge Your Critical Thinking Prowess Starting Today!
• Master the 3 Key Aspects of Identifying and Countering Fallacious Reasoning Like a Pro!
• Ditch Intuition: Why Relying Solely on Gut Instincts Can Stall Your Progress and What to Do Instead!
• How to Make Smarter Decisions Without Sacrificing Your Precious Time or Mental Well-being!
• Unleash Your Critical Mindset: 4 Powerful Skills to Cultivate a Strategic Approach to Problem-Solving!
• Master the Art of Inquiry: Develop 5 Effective Questioning Strategies for Deeper Understanding!
• Overcoming Bias: 4 Proven Techniques to Identify and Challenge Biases, Elevating Your Ability to Accept Logical Arguments!
• Harness the Power of Logic : Understand the Craft of Constructing Air-Tight Arguments for Maximum Persuasion!
• Navigate Communication Minefields: Learn Proven Strategies to Communicate Effectively and Resolve Conflicts Like a Pro!

…and much, much more!

With your purchase, you’ll also receive FOUR EXCLUSIVE BONUSES :

• How to Teach Kids Critical Thinking: Discover effective strategies for instilling critical thinking skills in children.
• Applying Critical Thinking Skills in Everyday Life : Practical tips to enhance decision-making and problem-solving in your daily routine.
• History of Critical Thinking: Discover the evolution and impact of critical thinking on modern society.
• The Resilience Handbook : Build your resilience with insights on Stoic principles and the four main emotional intelligence skills.

Imagine how you'll feel once you've honed your critical thinking skills, conquered logical fallacies, and made confident decisions in all areas of your life. Picture the admiration from family and friends as you navigate challenges with ease and clarity.

So even if you’re a skeptic or feel like you’ve tried everything before, you can achieve remarkable results with "The Art Of Critical Thinking, Logic, & Problem-Solving" .

And if you have a burning desire to take control of your cognitive abilities and achieve your goals with confidence and precision, then scroll up and click “Add to Cart" now.

• Book 3 of 3 Emotional Resilience
• Print length 135 pages
• Language English
• Sticky notes On Kindle Scribe
• Publication date May 21, 2024
• File size 1486 KB
• Page Flip Enabled
• Word Wise Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting Enabled
• See all details

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

From the Publisher

Product details

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0D4WJ8X22
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 21, 2024
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1486 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 135 pages
• Page numbers source ISBN ‏ : ‎ B0D4YVWHPW
• #3 in Communication in Management
• #3 in Education Problem Solving
• #28 in Business Communication Skills

About the author

Winston meskill.

Winston Meskill is an author, philosopher, and teacher of Stoicism. He was born and raised in Utah, where he still resides with his wife and three children. After working in the finance and banking industry for many years, he decided to focus on living off of his investments and pursuing his passions.

Winston discovered the Stoic philosophy after facing personal struggles in his life. He found himself overwhelmed by stress and unable to handle emotional conversations, which led him to make poor decisions. He felt like he had lost all joy in his life and was searching for a way to improve his well-being.

Through the teachings of Stoicism, Winston was able to transform his life and find a path to true happiness. He dedicated himself to exploring and practicing the philosophy, and eventually decided to write a book to share his knowledge and experience with others.

When he's not writing or teaching, Winston can often be found reading, painting, or spending time with his family. He is passionate about spreading the wisdom of Stoicism and helping others find peace and purpose in their lives.

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Reviews with images

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Report an issue

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices