Fallacies 2 | Philo 1

Fallacies of Relevance

premises aren't logically relevant to the conclusion, though they may seem so.

Ad Populum (Appeal to Populace)

wins assent by arousing the feelings/passions of a crowd rather than offering evidence; includes the "bandwagon" variant (do X because everyone else does). Common in propaganda and advertising.

Accept my conclusion because everyone believes it.

Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Emotion)

relying on sympathy rather than facts (e.g., a lawyer's tear-jerking plea); related variants include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, and pride.

Accept my conclusion because you feel sorry for me.

The Red Herring

deliberately drags in an irrelevant, distracting issue to divert attention from the real one under dispute.

Distracting from the main issue by bringing up something irrelevant.

The Straw Man

misrepresents an opponent's position as more extreme/absurd than it really is, then attacks that easy caricature instead of the real view.

Attack a distorted version of the argument.

Ad Hominem (Argument against the Person)

attacks the arguer instead of the argument.

Reject the argument by attacking the person

Abusive Ad Hominem

directly disparages the opponent's character, intelligence, or integrity.

Circumstantial Ad Hominem

dismisses a claim because of the arguer's situation/affiliations

Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)

relies on a threat (physical or otherwise, e.g., legal/professional intimidation) rather than reasons to compel assent.

Accept my conclusion, or face the consequence

Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the Point)

premises support a different conclusion than the one actually being argued for — a "disconnect" between evidence and claim; the related term non sequitur ("it does not follow") broadly names any argument where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

The reasons may support a conclusion, but not the conclusion actually presented.

Fallacies of Defective Induction

premises are relevant but too weak to support the conclusion.

Ad Ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance)

claiming something is true because it hasn't been proven false (or vice versa). Legitimate exception: the courtroom presumption of innocence, and cases where a thorough, competent search would very likely have found evidence if it existed (e.g., drug safety testing).

Something is true simply because it has not been disproven.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority)

citing an "expert" who lacks real competence in the relevant field (e.g., a physicist's opinion on foreign policy, a celebrity endorsing a product).

Using someone who is not qualified in the relevant field as proof.

Non Causa Pro Causa (False Cause)

treating something as a cause when it isn't.

Assuming that correlation or sequence proves causation.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

assuming mere temporal sequence proves causation.

Slippery Slope

assuming one step in a direction inevitably triggers an extreme chain reaction, without justification.

Hasty Generalization

drawing a broad conclusion about a whole class from just one or a few unrepresentative cases (basis of many stereotypes).

Making a general conclusion from insufficient evidence.