Skip navigation



Now.  What is a logical fallacy? A logical fallacy is what happens when our normal reasoning process farts.  All of these fallacies represent methods of argument that ignore, redact, alter, or reshape the actual inherent logic of their position.  For example, the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy may indeed win you your argument, but it is logically irrelevant.   Similarly, the complaints leveled against Newt Gingrich when he talks about defending the ‘sanctity of marriage.’*   You should absolutely respect and love your spouse, yes, that’s a nice plus.  It’s a true statement.  The fact that it’s Gingrich saying it doesn’t make it less true, it just makes it REALLY FUNNY.   Assuming that because it’s Gingrich saying it, and because he’s, well, himself, then it must be false? That’s a logical fallacy–the ad hominem.

*as applied to love and respect? Yes. As applied to the ‘marriage debate’ currently making its way to the SCOTUS? BULL.  Get your sanctity out of my civil rights.

With that in mind, here is a COMPREHENSIVE PARTIAL LIST of MOST fallacies.  You can see these made all over the place on a daily basis (ad populum), and people who know these fallacies tend not to commit them (non causa pro causa), therefore it’s best for you to MEMORIZE ALL OF THEM! AND READ THE REST OF MY BLOG! (ignoratio elenchi) 
Argumentum ad baculum Appeal to force (e.g. “Either agree with me or I’ll beat the everloving **** out of you.”)  Mafia threats.
Argumentum ad misericordiam Appeal to pity (e.g. “You should give me this job, because I’m down on my luck [insert woes].”)  “You should concede the point in this argument, because I already have low self-esteem, and my walrus died last week, and I failed a Calculus test…”
Argumentum ad populum Appeal to the people.  In direct form; inspirational speeches. “We the People,” etc.
(ad populum)Appeal to celebrity/vanity Advertisements: “This famous person does it! You should too!”
(ad populum)Appeal to snobbery Advertisements: “Only refined people do this!” Grey Poupon mustard commercials, etc.
Argumentum ad hominem Argument against the man.
Ad hominem abusive Insults.  “Bob might seem to have a good argument, but consider how stupid he is. I mean look at the ugly ****er. Clearly you should pay his argument no attention.”
Ad hominem circumstantial Points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. “Of course this Mexican is in favor of a relaxed green card policy! He probably just wants to get over our border and take our jobs!”
Ad hominem: Tu quoque”  (“You too”) The arguer is guilty of the very thing s/he argues against (an irrelevant point): “You may claim that a vegan diet is the most morally acceptable option, but aren’t those leather shoes you’re wearing?!”
Fallacy of Accident (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) (destroying the exception) Ignoring an exception to a general rule: e.g. “Cutting people with knives is illegal. Surgeons cut people with knives. Surgeons are criminals.”
Straw Man Attacking an argument other than the one presented against you.  Used in politics all the time (when was the last time someone fairly represented their opponent’s views in a political debate?)
Ignoratio elenchi Missing the point. A ‘catch-all’ fallacy for when the conclusion comes completely out of nowhere and you’re like “wait, what?”
(Ignoratio elenchi ) Red Herring Fallacy A deliberate attempt to divert the counterargument by purposefully missing the point and leading the discourse astray. An intentional digression.
Argumentum ad vericundiam Appeal to unqualified authority. “Because [insert unrelated person] said so.”
Argumentum ad ignorantiam Appeal to ignorance. Usual structure of a (flawed) atheistic refutation of God. Absence of evidence taken as evidence of absence.
Converse Fallacy of Accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter) A hasty generalization. “If we allow people with glaucoma to use medical marijuana, then everyone should be allowed to use marijuana.”
False Cause (Non causa pro causa) (“Non-cause for cause”) Incorrect causal claim.
(False Cause) Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (“After this, therefore because of this”) “Y occurred, then X occurred. Clearly Y causes X.”
(False Cause) Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (“with this, therefore because of this”) Causally: No. Just, no.  Causal claim about a vaguely correlated fact. “The number of true swashbuckling pirates has decreased as global temperatures have increased.  Thus, GLOBAL WARMING KILLS PIRATES.”
(False Cause) Oversimplified Cause Pulling out one specific cause for a complex event. The blame game applies. “You know whose fault it was that the hurricane destroyed the train depot? STEVE. He didn’t lock the doors when he left on Friday! GOD DAMMIT STEVE.”
(False Cause) Gambler’s Fallacy A very…interesting view of probability.“I haven’t won in thirteen games.  I MUST BE DUE FOR A BIG ONE! SIGN ME UP!”
Slippery Slope You know what this looks like. A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn’t a slippery slope fallacy.
Weak Analogy/False Analogy**The term “false analogy” was coined by (guess who) JOHN STUART MOTHERF*****G MILL. The example to the right is paraphrased from his. Arguing by analogy is how we reason normally. Unfortunately, you’ve just done it wrong.“Person X is lazy. I don’t know their sibling, Person Y, but I can only assume that they are lazy too.”  Clearly not, since parental relationship does not establish a relationship of identity.
Petitio principii (Assuming the start; begging the question) A statement is assumed to be true without further proof than the statement itself. E.g.; (in simplified form)“I think he is unattractive because he is ugly.”
Complex Question A loaded question. “Howdy there Bob! Have you stopped beating your children yet?”  There’s no way to answer the question without losing.
False Dichotomy Two choices are presented as the only possible solutions to a problem. “Either you join us, or THE COMMUNISTS WIN. And I know you don’t like communists.”
Suppressed Evidence ‘Cherry picking;’ taking only the evidence that supports your case, suppressing information that could be sufficient to disprove your point without further ado.
Fallacy of Equivocation Playing with the meanings of a word, using it in a different sense from previously. This can be as simple as “Something must be done.  This is something. Therefore, this must be done,” or as complex as making a subtle change to the connotative meanings of ‘environmentally sound.’
Amphiboly A fallacy resulting from an ambiguous grammatical structure.  Often quite silly. Simple example: “No food is better than our food.”  To interpret this as meaning “our food sucks” is to commit the fallacy of amphiboly.
Fallacy of Division Assuming incorrectly that something true of a thing must be true of all its parts. “This chair is green. All its component atoms must be green as well.”
Fallacy of Composition Assuming incorrectly that something true of all the components is true of their sum. “All these atoms are invisible.  The chair they form must also be invisible.”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: