THE FOLLOWING FILES...are taken from the internet skeptics echo & were

part of a discussion on the formal aspects of fallacious argument. I

have edited them for clarity, but the content is unabridged.

-- EROSTRATUS --

_______________________________________________________________________

The following comments were posted by Ben Cushman of Reed College.

Editorial comments in brackets ([]) are Mr. Cushman's, not mine.

_______________________________________________________________________

Here is a list of everyday fallacies take from Peter A. Angeles

Dictionary of Philosophy-- published by Barnes and Noble, copyright

1981. Great and useful book-- I strongly recommend picking up a copy.

If these are not what you want, then you don't want fallacies.

..fallacy, types of informal. Sometimes semi-formal or quasi-formal

fallacies. The following is a list of 40 informal fallacies which is by

no means exhaustive. No attempt has been made to subsume them under

general categories such as Fallacies, Classification of Informal [which I

will also include].

1. Black-and-white fallacy. Arguing (a) with the use of sharp

("black-and-white") distinctions despite any factual or theoretical

support for them, or (b) by classifying any middle point between the

extremes ("black-and-white") as one of the extremes. Examples: "If he is

an atheist then he is a decent person." "He is either a conservative or

a liberal." "He must not be peace-loving, since he participated in

picketing the American embassy."

2. Fallacy of argumentum ad baculum (argument from power or force.) The

Latin means "an argument according to the stick." "argument by means of

the rod," "argument using force." Arguing to support the acceptance of

an argument by a threat, or use of force. Reasoning is replaced by

force, which results in the termination of logical argumentation, and

elicits other kinds of behavior (such as fear, anger, reciprocal use of

force, etc.).

3. Fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man) [a

personal favorite of mine]. The Latin means "argument to the man." (a)

Arguing against, or rejecting a person's views by attacking or abusing

his personality, character, motives, intentions, qualifications, etc. as

opposed to providing evidence why the views are incorrect. Example:

"What John said should not be believed because he was a Nazi

sympathizer." [Well, there goes Heidegger.]

4. Fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). The

Latin means "argument to ignorance." (a) Arguing that something is true

because no one has proved it to be false, or (b) arguing that something

is false because no one has proved it to be true. Examples: (a) Spirits

exist since no one has as yet proved that there are not any. (b) Spirits

do not exist since no one has as yet proved their existence. Also

called the appeal to ignorance: the lack of evidence (proof) for

something is used to support its truth.

5. Fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam (argument to pity). Arguing

by appeal to pity in order to have some point accepted. Example: "I've

got to have at least a B in this course, Professor Angeles. If I don't

I won't stand a chance for medical school, and this is my last semester

at the university." Also called the appeal to pity.

6. Fallacy of argumentum ad personam (appeal to personal interest).

Arguing by appealing to the personal likes (preferences, prejudices,

predispositions, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted.

7. Fallacy of argumentum as populum (argument to the people). Also the

appeal to the gallery, appeal to the majority, appeal to what is

popular, appeal to popular prejudice, appeal to the multitude, appeal to

the mob instinct [appeal to the stupid, stinking masses]. Arguing in

order to arouse an emotional, popular acceptance of an idea without

resorting to logical justification of the idea. An appeal is made to

such things as biases, prejudices, feelings, enthusiasms, attitudes of

the multitude in order to evoke assent rather than to rationally support

the idea.

8. Fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (argument to authority or to

veneration) [another of my personal favorites]. (a) appealing to

authority (including customs, traditions, institutions, etc.) in order

to gain acceptance of a point at issue and/or (b) appealing to the

feelings of reverence or respect we have of those in authority, or who

are famous. Example: "I believe that the statement 'YOu cannot

legislate morality' is true, because President Eisenhower said it."

9. Fallacy of accent. Sometimes classified as ambiguity of accent.

Arguing to conclusions from undue emphasis (accent, tone) upon certain

words or statements. Classified as a fallacy of ambiguity whenever this

emphasis creates an ambiguity or AMPHIBOLY in the words or statements

used in an argument. Example: "The queen cannot but be praised." [also

"We are free if we could have done otherwise."-- as this statement is

used by incompatibilists about free-will and determinism.]

10. Fallacy of accident. Also called by its Latin name a dicto

simpliciter and dictum secundum quid. (a) Applying a general rule or

principle to a particular instance whose circumstances by "accident" do

not allow the proper application of that generalization. Example: "It

is a general truth that no one should lie. Therefore, no one should lie

if a murderer at the point of a knife asks you for information you know

would lead to a further murder." (b) The error in argumentation of

applying a general statement to a situation to which it cannot, and was

not necessarily intended to, be applied.

11. Fallacy of ambiguity. An argument that has at least one ambiguous

word or statement from which a misleading or wrong conclusion is drawn.

12. Fallacy of amphiboly. Arguing to conclusions from statements that

themselves are amphibolous-- ambiguous because of their syntax

(grammatical construction). Sometimes classified as a fallacy of

ambiguity.

13. Fallacy of begging the question. (a) Arriving at a conclusion from

statements that themselves are questionable and have to be proved but are

assumed true. Example: The universe has a beginning. Every thing that

has a beginning has a beginner. Therefore, the universe has a beginner

called God. This assumes (begs the question) that the universe does

indeed have a beginning and also that all things that have a beginning

have a beginner. (b) Assuming the conclusion ar part of the conclusion

in the premises of an argument. Sometimes called circular reasoning,

vicious circularity, vicious circle fallacy [Continental Philosophy--

sorry, I just couldn't resist]. Example: "Everything has a cause. The

universe is a thing. Therefore, the universe is a thing that has a

cause." (c) Arguing in a circle. One statement is supported by

reference to another statement which is itself supported by reference to

the first statement [such as a coherentist account of knowledge/truth].

Example: "Aristocracy is the best form of government because the best

form of government if that which has strong aristocratic leadership."

14. Fallacy of complex question (or loaded question). (a) Asking

questions for which either a yes or no answer will incriminate the

respondent. The desired answer is already tacitly assumed in the

question and no qualification of the simple answer is allowed. Example:

"Have you discontinued the use of opiates?" (b) Asking questions that

are based on unstated attitudes or questionable (or unjustified)

assumptions. These questions are often asked rhetorically of the

respondent in such a way as to elicit an agreement with those attitudes

or assumptions from others. Example: "How long are you going to put up

with this brutality?"

15. Fallacy of composition. Arguing (a) that what is true of each part

of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself, or (b) what

is true of some parts is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself.

Example: "Each member (or some members) of the team is married,

therefore the team also has (must have) a wife." [A less silly example--

you promise me that you will come to Portland tomorrow, you also promise

someone else that you will go to Detroit tomorrow. Now, you ought to be

in Portland tomorrow, and you ought to be in Detroit tomorrow (because

you ought to keep your promises). However, it does not follow that you

ought to be in both Portland and Detroit tomorrow (because ought implies

can).] Inferring that a collection has a certain characteristic merely

on the basis that its parts have them erroneously proceeds from

regarding the collection DISTRIBUTIVELY to regarding it COLLECTIVELY.

16. Fallacy of consensus gentium. Arguing that an idea is true on the

basis (a) that the majority of people believe it and/or (b) that it has

been universally held by all men at all times. Example: "God exists

because all cultures have had some concept of a God."

17. Fallacy of converse accident. Sometimes converse fallacy of

accident. Also called by its Latin name a dicto secumdum quid ad dictum

simpliciter. The error of generalizing from atypical or exceptional

instances. Example: "A shot of warm brandy each night helps older

people relax and sleep better. People in general ought to drink warm

brandy to relieve their tension and sleep better."

18. Fallacy of division. Arguing that what is true of a whole is (a)

also (necessarily) true of its parts and/or (b) also true of some of its

parts. Example: "The community of Pacific Palisades is extremely

wealthy. Therefore, every person living there is (must be) extremely

wealthy (or therefor Adam, who lives there, must be extremely wealthy."

Inferring that the parts of a collection have certain characteristic

merely on the basis that their collection has them erroneously proceeds

from regarding the collection collectively to regarding it

distributively.

19. Fallacy of equivocation. An argument in which a word is used with

one meaning in one part of the argument and with another meaning in

another part. A common example: "The end of a thing is its perfection;

death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life."

20. Fallacy of non causa pro causa. the Latin may be translated as

"there is no cause of the sort that has been given as the cause." (a)

Believing that something is the cause of an effect when in reality it is

not. Example: "My incantations caused it to rain." (b) Arguing so that

a statement appears unacceptable because it implies another statement

that is false (but in reality does not).

21. Fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The Latin means "after this

therefore the consequence (effect) of this," or "after this therefore

because of this." Sometimes simply fallacy of false cause. Concluding

that one thing is the cause of another thing because it precedes it in

time. A confusion between the concept of succession and that of

causation. Example: "A black cat ran across my path. Ten minutes mater

I was hit by a truck. Therefore, the cat's running across my path was

the cause of my being hit by a truck."

22. Fallacy of hazy generalization. Sometimes fallacy of hasty

induction. An error of reasoning whereby a general statement is

asserted (inferred) based on (a) limited information or (b) inadequate

evidence, or (c) an unrepresentative sampling.

23. Fallacy of ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). An argument

that is irrelevant; that argues for something other than that which is

to be proved and thereby in no way refutes (or supports) the points at

issue. Example: A lawyer in defending his alcoholic client who has

murdered three people in a drunken spree argues that alcoholism is a

terrible disease and attempts should be made to eliminate it. IGNORATIO

ELENCHI is sometimes used as a general name for all fallacies that are

based on irrelevancy (such as ad baculum, ad hominem, as misericordiam,

as populum, ad verecundiam, consensus gentium, etc.)

24. Fallacy of inconsistency. Arguing from inconsistent statements, or

to conclusions that are inconsistent with the premises. See fallacy of

tu quoque below.

25. Fallacy of irrelevant purpose. Arguing against something on the

basis that it has not fulfilled its purpose (although in fact that was

not its intended purpose).

26 Fallacy of 'is' to 'ought.' Arguing from premises that have only

descriptive statements (is) to a conclusion that contains an ought, or a

should.

27. Fallacy of limited (or false) alternatives. The error of insisting

without full inquiry or evidence that the alternatives to a course of

action have been exhausted and/or are mutually exclusive.

28. Fallacy of many questions. Sometimes fallacy of the false question.

Asking a question for which a single and simple answer is demanded yet

the question (a) requires a series of answers, and/or (b) requires

answers to a host of other questions, each of which have to be answered

separately. Example: "Have you left school?"

29. Fallacy of misleading context. Arguing by misrepresenting,

distorting, omitting or quoting something out of context.

30. Fallacy of prejudice. Arguing from a bias or emotional

identification or involvement with an idea (argument, doctrine,

institution, etc.).

31. Fallacy of red herring. Ignoring criticism of an argument by

changing attention to another subject. Examples: "You believe in

abortion, yet you don't believe in the right-to- die-with-dignity bill

before the legislature."

32. Fallacy of slanting. Deliberately omitting, deemphasizing, or

overemphasizing certain points to the exclusion of others in order to

hide evidence that is important and relevant to the conclusion of the

argument and that should be taken into account of in an argument.

33. Fallacy of special pleading. (a) Accepting an idea or criticism when

applied to an opponent's argument but rejecting it when applied to one's

own argument. (b) rejecting an idea or criticism when applied to an

opponent's argument but accepting it when applied to one's own.

34. Fallacy of the straw man. Presenting an opponent's position in as

weak or misrepresented a version as possible so that it can be easily

refuted. Example: "Darwinism is in error. It claims that we are all

descendants from an apelike creature, from which we evolved according to

natural selection. No evidence of such a creature has been found. No

adequate and consistent explanation of natural selection has been given.

Therefore, evolution according to Darwinism has not taken place."

35. Fallacy of the beard. Arguing (a) that small or minor differences

do not (or cannot) make a difference, or are not (or cannot be)

significant, or (b) arguing so as to find a definite point at which

something can be named. For example, insisting that a few hairs lost

here and there do not indicate anything about my impending baldness; or

trying to determine how many hairs a person must have before he can be

called bald (or not bald).

36. Fallacy of tu quoque (you also). (a) Presenting evidence that a

person's actions are not consistent with that for which he is arguing.

Example: "John preaches that we should be kind and loving. He doesn't

practice it. I've seen him beat up his kids." (b) Showing that a

person's views are inconsistent with what he previously believed and

therefore (1) he is not to be trusted, and/or (2) his new view is to be

rejected. Example: "Judge Egener was against marijuana legislation four

years ago when he was running for office. Now he is for it. How can

you trust a man who can change his mind on such an important issue? His

present position is inconsistent with his earlier view and therefore it

should not be accepted." (c) Sometimes related to the Fallacy of two

wrongs make a right. Example: The Democrats for years used illegal

wiretapping; therefore the Republicans should not be condemned for their

use of illegal wiretapping.

37. Fallacy of unqualified source. Using as support in an argument a

source of authority that is not qualified to provide evidence.

38. Gambler's fallacy. (a) Arguing that since, for example, a penny has

fallen tails ten times in a row then it will fall heads the eleventh

time or (b) arguing that since, for example, an airline has not had an

accident for the past ten years, it is then soon due for an accident.

The gambler's fallacy rejects the assumption in probability theory that

each event is independent of its previous happening. the chances of an

event happening are always the same no matter how many times that event

has taken place in the past. Given those events happening over a long

enough period of time then their frequency would average out to 1/2.

Sometimes referred to as the Monte Carlo fallacy (a generalized form of

the gambler's fallacy): The error of assuming that because something has

happened less frequently than expected in the past, there is an

increased chance that it will happen soon.

39. Genetic fallacy. Arguing that the origin of something is identical

with that thing with that from which it originates. Example:

'Consciousness originates in neural processes. Therefore, consciousness

is (nothing but) neural processes. Sometimes referred to as the

nothing-but fallacy, or the REDUCTIVE FALLACY. (b) Appraising or

explaining something in terms of its origin, or source, or beginnings.

(c) Arguing that something is to be rejected because its origins are

[unknown] and/or suspicious.

40. Pragmatic fallacy. Arguing that something is true because it has

practical effects upon people: it makes them happier, easier to deal

with, more moral, loyal, stable. Example: "An immortal life exists

because without such a concept men would have nothing to live for.

There would be no meaning or purpose in life and everyone would be

immoral."

41. Pathetic fallacy. Incorrectly projecting (attributing) human

emotions, feeling, intentions, thoughts, traits upon events or objects

which do not possess the capacity for such qualities.

42. Naturalist fallacy (ethics):

a. The fallacy of reducing ethical statements to factual

statements, to statements about natural events.

b. The fallacy of deriving (deducing) ethical statements from

nonethical statements. [is/ought fallacy].

c. The fallacy of defining ethical terms in nonethical

(descriptive, naturalistic, or factual) terms [ought/is fallacy].

43. Fallacy, classification of informal. Informal fallacies may be

classified in a variety of ways. Three general categories:

a. Material fallacies have to do with the facts (the matter, the

content) of the argument in question. Two subcategories of material

fallacies are: (1) fallacies of evidence, which refer to arguments that

do not provide the required factual support (ground, evidence) for their

conclusions, and (2) fallacies of irrelevance (or relevance) which refer

to arguments that have supporting statements that are irrelevant to the

conclusion being asserted and therefore cannot establish the truth of

that conclusion.

b. Linguistic fallacies have to do with defects in arguments

such as ambiguity (in which careless shifts of meanings or linguistic

imprecisions lead to erroneous conclusions), vagueness, incorrect use of

words, lack of clarity, linguistic inconsistencies, circularities.

c. Fallacies of irrelevant emotional appeal have to do with

affecting behavior (responses, attitudes). That is, arguments are

presented in such a way as to appeal to one's prejudices, biases,

loyalty, dedication,fear, guilt, and so on. They persuade, cajole,

threaten, or confuse in order to win assent to an argument.

I hope that these definitions and examples are helpful and

responsive. I have found them very useful.

Ben Cushman

Reed College