Guide to Logical Fallacies

With all the debating and exchange of ideas that occur not only within this particular board but on this website as a whole I feel there should be an in-depth guide to the world of logical fallacies, given I am certain you will encounter your fair share of them here on Sythe and in your day-to-day life as well. My intention is for this guide to be both detailed and easily accessible for those who may not be incredibly literate or familiar with logical reasoning, so after the main portion of this "guide" I will include a TL;DR section that explains the information in an easily digestible manner. So, let's get into it.

The Basics: What is a fallacy and why should I care?

In the world of logic, a fallacy is defined as the following:

• a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid

or

• faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument

When you are debating somebody or even just having an interesting or involved discussion, whatever their claim is will generally have a logical fallacy within it that you can find. Honestly, there are enough logical fallacies that you will most likely be able to spot one in any conversation you have with anyone. Tread carefully, though. Just because someone's argument contains a logical fallacy does not mean their conclusion is incorrect or untrue -- it simply means the method they have used to reach said conclusion is flawed. I covered the basic ideas of why you should care about fallacious logic very briefly in the introductory paragraph -- namely that it is something you are nigh guaranteed to encounter on a multitude of occasions in your lifetime. Maybe you have been known to commit some of these logical fallacies yourself without even realizing it! If you are someone who prides yourself on your ability to think rationally and reason soundly, logical fallacies and their meanings are something you may want to hold near and dear to your heart (and brain). Moreover, if you are someone who dislikes being mislead and values the ability to distinguish fact from fiction then you may want to give this guide a thorough reading.

Before continuing let me briefly list the logical fallacies that will be covered in this thread:

• Slippery Slope

• Begging the Claim and Question

• Circular Arguments

• Strawman

• Red Herring

• Argumentum ad Populum

• Moral Equivalence

• Argumentum ad Hominem

• False Dichotomy

• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

• Hasty Generalization

• No true Scotsman

• Argument from Authority

The Info: What do these fallacies mean?

Slippery Slope

This is a form in which it is argued one event will inevitably follow from another without any logical argument connecting the two. It is a common fallacy that will state a relatively small first step will lead to a series of unrelated following steps that eventually culminate in some significant effect or event, much like a snowball being pushed down a large hill. This is often used synonymously with what is referred to as "Continuum Fallacy," which ignores any possibility of a middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from Event A to Event B.

Examples: "If you smoke marijuana you will become a crack smoker."

"You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."


Begging the Claim and Question

Begging the question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. By asking an individual a question or making a claim in this manner it is implying information without first verifying if this is true or untrue, existent or non-existent, and in doing so attempting to give power to this question or claim by stating it as if it has already been verified or is already true. This can be used to mislead and confuse the individual being questioned, or even tricked into indirectly agreeing with information that is altogether untrue.

Examples: "How long have you been beating your wife?"

"Why do you like cheating on your tests?"


Circular Arguments or Reasoning

This fallacy takes the form of "A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true." This can be difficult to detect because it is often not used in such a simplistic manner -- it is often worded in an intentionally confusing or difficult to interpret fashion. Like "A is true because both B and C are true, B is true because both A and C are true, and C is obviously true because both B and A are true." This can be even more involved as the chain of claims is extended and can be even more difficult to detect and counter as you must track each individual item or claim and scrutinize them independently before determining whether or not it invalidates the remaining items or claims.

Examples: "The Bible is the word of God. I know this because God tells us so... in the Bible."

Pvt. Joe Bowers: "What are these electrolytes? Do you even know?"
Secretary of State: "They're... what they use to make Brawndo!"
Pvt. Joe Bowers: "But why do they use them to make Brawndo?"
Secretary of Defense: [raises hand after a pause] "Because Brawndo's got electrolytes."

Strawman

This is one I'm sure most of you have heard thrown around at least once or twice. It is incredibly common but also incredibly easy to spot if you know what you're looking for. A strawman is when a case is made against an argument that is not the original argument the person was making. For this fallacy to be successfully employed it requires the audience to be ignorant of the original argument that was being made. Also called "Attacking the Strawman" it is based on the misrepresentation of the opponent's original claims and creating the illusion of having successfully refuted or defeated the original proposition by covertly replacing it with another, often similar, proposition. Let's break this one down a little bit:

Person 1 holds position X.

Person 2 disregards certain key aspects of position X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y.

Position Y is a distorted version of position X and can be set up in several ways. This includes a misrepresentation of position X , quoting Person 1's words out of context, or presenting an overly simplified version of position X and then attacking this simplification.

This is obviously fallacious because refuting an overly simplified, misrepresented, distorted or misquoted version of a position is NOT the same as refuting the original position. This is a non-sequitur and often relies on the ignorance of the audience to sway them into accepting this as true.

Examples: "Senator Smith says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Person 1: *statement on how the American education system is flawed and needs an alternative*
Person 2: *statement on how Person 1 does not value education, followed by reasons on why education is important*

Red Herring

The red herring is another quite devious logical fallacy that is often used to sway or mislead an audience from an original argument. While similar to the Strawman in this way it is different in so far that a red herring is a seemingly plausible counter argument, but is ultimately irrelevant and is simply a diversionary tactic. However, according to the Oxford English Dictionary a red herring can be either intentional or unintentional. This further separates it from the Strawman, which is almost always used with the conscious intent to dissuade or mislead. The expression is mainly used to assert that the argument is not relevant to the main issue being discussed. This will often take form in one of two ways:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A.
Topic A is abandoned.

or

Person 1 states that they think A.
Person 1 then states that you should also think A because B and/or C.

The second sentence or idea, although seemingly used to support the first sentence or idea, doesn't necessarily address the topic and will often distract from it.

Examples: "I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. You should support this because we are in a budget crisis and we don't want our salaries to be affected, do we?"

"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."

Argumentum ad Populum

Commonly referred to as simply Ad Populum, Argumentum ad Populum is known by many names, including but not limited to Appeal To The Masses, Appeal To Belief, Appeal to Democracy, Appeal To The People, Appeal To Popularity, Bandwagon Fallacy, etc. This is a fallacious argument that attempts to argue that if many people believe something to be so, it must indeed be so. This reinforces a mindset very common in today's society and is responsible for many social phenomena such as communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect.

Examples: "Justin Bieber is such a good artist, all of his videos have over 100 million views on YouTube!"

"I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if most people like them, then they must be okay."

Moral Equivalence

This is a term used often in political debates in a manner to criticize denial that any moral hierarchy can be assessed of the two sides in a conflict or in the actions or tactics of the two sides. This is similar to the "Hitler Fallacy," as it were, which is used to compare the actions of Adolf Hitler to anything else ("X is like putting Jews in concentration camps.") So if you were to say that taxes are the same as sexual rape, even though taxes are technically taking property by force (re: taking sexual pleasure by force) clearly one is much more disturbed or evil than the other, so to compare the two would be improper. They are not actually morally equivalent, although the speaker in this situation would like the audience to believe so. The converse of this is also a fallacy ("X is just as good as Y.")

Examples: "Imprisoning non-violent criminals is worse than putting people in concentration camps!"

"The Obama Administration's new mandatory regulations are even better than a new Declaration of Independence... Barack Obama is like a founding father!"

Argumentum ad Hominem

Commonly referred to as simply Ad Hominem, there are generally considered to be two types of this fallacy; abusive and circumstantial. The first kind, abusive, usually involves attacking the traits of an individual as a means to invalidate their proposition. This is fallacious because whether or not the original argument is true, it is equating their character to the soundness of their argument, which are entirely unrelated (not to be confused with slander, which employs falsehoods.) The second kind, circumstantial, constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not necessarily invalidate said argument or make it untrue. This overlaps with the Genetic Fallacy, which claims an argument or proposition is incorrect due to its source.

Examples: Person 1: "Rodney King was not a victim of police brutality."
Person 2: "You expect me to believe that, you racist?"

Person 1: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Person 2: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."

False Dilemma

There are many names for this fallacy, including, but not limited to: Black and White Thinking, Bifurcation, Denying a Conjunct, The Either Or Fallacy, False Dichotomy, etc. This occurs when only two options are presented and the assumption is made that those are indeed the only two options to choose from simply because they were the only ones stated. This is perhaps the most straight-forward of the fallacies listed here and thus requires the least amount of explanation.

Examples: "If you're not with us then you're against us."

Bob: "Joe and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Joe: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bob: "You're not an atheist, are you Joe?"

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Commonly referred to as simly Post Hoc, it is also known as False Cause, Questionable Cause, Confusing Coincidental Relationships With Causes, etc. and is translated as "After this, therefore, because of this." This is not the same as Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ("Correlation does not equal or imply causation.") This is an argument in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering of these events is insignificant or unknown. This is a particularly tempting mistake because temporal sequences appears to be integral to the causality. The fallacy lies within coming to a conclusion based solely on the sequence of events rather than taking into account other factors that could be significant causes or may rule out the connection. The form can be expressed as follows:

A occurred.
Then, B occurred.
Therefore, A obviously caused B.

This can be tricky because simply claiming there could be a correlation does not necessarily mean A did not cause B. For example, drunk driving is correlated with car accidents... and it also causes them. This fallacy is the leading reason for using double blind tests thanks to things like the placebo effect.

Examples: Bob is scratched by his cat on Monday. On Wednesday he comes down with a fever. Bob concludes the cat scratch caused his fever.

Joe was playing poorly all season. His girlfriend gave him a new hat. Joe won his next three games. Joe concludes the hat is lucky and is the reason he won his games.

Hasty Generalization

This fallacy is reached by an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence, essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables. This can often be seen in statistics as surveys will take information from a small sample group and quickly extrapolate this information and apply it to a much larger population with no further reasoning or evidence. It can often be seen in the following form:

X is true for A, B, C and D.
Therefore, X will be true for E, F, G, H ... and Z.

Examples: A cowboy passes through a town for the first time and sees only 10 children. He erroneously concludes that it is a town of all children and there are no adults within.

A person is viewing a number line. 1 is square number. 3, 5, and 7 are prime numbers. 9 is a square number. 11 and 13 are prime numbers. That person erroneously concludes all odd numbers are either prime or square.

No True Scotsman

This fallacy is an attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion when faced with a counter example to a universal claim. Rather than denying the example or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or other like it through the use of rhetoric without referencing any specific of objective rule. A frequently cited example of this fallacy was during a political discussion in which it was stated that no democracy starts a war. Then the distinction was made that no "mature" or "true" democracy would ever start a war and that some "emerging" democracies may happen to...

Examples: Person 1: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person 2: "I'm Scottish and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person 1: "Well, no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Person 1: "Christians don't use birth control."
Person 2: "I use birth control and I'm a Christian..."
Person 1: "Yeah, but you're not really a Christian, right?"

Argument from Authority

This is also commonly known as Authoritative Argument and Appeal to Authority. This argument occurs when trying to establish a statistical syllogism and relies on the following forms of argument:

A is an authority on X.
A says something about X.
Therefore, A is obviously correct.

and/or

A says p about subject matter S.
A should be trusted on subject matter S.
Therefore, p is obviously correct.

Fallacious examples of an appeal to authority include arguments used in the context of deductive reasoning and appealing to the position of an authority to dismiss evidence. While authorities have the ability to be correct and are often taken to be so more often than laypersons, they are still capable of arriving at incorrect conclusions or enacting incorrect decisions through error, bias, dishonesty, etc. Thus, appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts. It should also be noted that the counter-argument from authority is equally fallacious. It often looks like this:

B has provided evidence for position T.
A says position T is incorrect.
Therefore, B's evidence is false.

This form is fallacious as it does not actually refute the evidence given by B, it merely notices that there is disagreement with it. This is especially unsound when there is no indication that A is aware of the evidence given by B.

Examples: "My college professor once told me that girls will go crazy for boys if they learn how to dance. Therefore, if you want to make the ladies go crazy for you, learn to dance."

"The Pope told me that priests can turn bread and wine into Jesus's body and blood. The Pope is not a liar. Therefore, priests really can do this."

The Conclusion

I'd like to first of all say thank you very much if you've made it this far into my terribly dry and boring, albeit useful, guide to logical fallacies. It took a lot of time and mental energy to write so I do hope you enjoyed it and retain enough of the information within it to effectively and accurately counter any logical fallacies you may encounter. As promised, below is the best part of the entire guide: the simplified summary of the contents.

Too long; didn't read!

Slippery Slope: Saying if A happens then B will happen, too.

Begging the Claim and Question: Circular argument where the conclusion is included in the premise.

Circular Arguments: A conclusion reached from a premise that is based on the conclusion.

Strawman: Misrepresenting the argument, then attacking that.

Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant distraction topic.

Argumentum ad Populum: Arguing that if everyone else says something, it must be true.

Moral Equivalence: Making a skewed moral comparison.

Argumentum ad Hominem: Attacking the person and not their claim.

False Dichotomy: Giving only two options when there are more to be examined.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Claiming that one event followed another, so the first event must have caused it.

Hasty Generalization: Drawing a general conclusion from a small sample.

No true Scotsman: Excluding counter arguments through rhetoric.

Argument from Authority: Claiming an argument is correct because the source is some form of authority.

 

Its a little cluttered, I just end up linking people to: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

Yeah I pretty much sat down and wrote the whole thing in one shot so I didn't put much time into editing yet, but that will come.

I like your link a lot but the idea for this was to be a little more in-depth for people who genuinely enjoy the study of logic and like to know the underlying concepts and principles behind these fallacies, as well as to provide basic examples in an on-site resource. I appreciate the feedback, though.

 

Fantastic guide in any regard. If you can figure out indenting and such, that would improve the guide and make it far easier to read, as I can imagine some people will turn away from reading it due to it being cluttered, as DD has said.

 

Thanks for the feedback! I'm going to go through it at some point either today or tomorrow and do a good bit of formatting to make it easier to read.

 

As bad as my ADHD wanted to see what color every car driving by was, I managed to read the whole guide. Very interesting topic. You obviously put a lot of work into it and I just wanted to let you know you did a REALLY good job, and it was good to learn something new. Cause I can actually use this information quite a bit. Cheers m8