Logicall Fallacies 3000

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

This fallacy attempts to create a casual relationship between ideas/events. While there may be evidence to eventually support the belief that the two events are linked, the conclusion that one must be due to the other simply because it happened afterward is false.

Red Herring/Smoke Screen

A distraction or irrelevant detail used to divert attention from the main issue or argument, often leading to confusion or misunderstanding.

Sweeping Generalization

This fallacy proposes a conclusion for all instances of the premise, even though there are most likely to be exceptions.

Hasty Generalization

A special case is used as the basis of a general rule. A general rule is created by examining only a few specific cases which aren’t representative of all possible cases.

Straw Man

You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.

Begging the Question/Circular Argument

In this fallacy, the premise and conclusion are used to support each other in a never ending circle of x because y and y because x.

Euphemisms

When propagandists use glittering generalities and name-calling symbols, they hope to arouse their audience with vivid, emotionally suggestive words. At other times, the propagandist seeks to pacify the audience by making an unpleasant reality more palatable. They do this by using bland and inoffensive words.

Ambiguity

You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.

False Analogy

This fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect

False Dichotomy

("black or white," excluded middle): Presuming an either-or distinction. Suggesting that there are only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. Instead of black or white, we can have shades of gray... or even rainbows of colors!

Loaded Question

You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty.

Middle Ground

You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth.

The Fallacy Fallacy

You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

The Texas Sharpshooter

You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument, or you found a pattern to fit a presumption.

Genetic

You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

Confirmation Bias

The logical fallacy where one only looks for evidence that confirms the beliefs that they want to hold. It usually goes hand in hand with evidence denial, where one does the opposite with evidence contrary to one’s desired beliefs and ignores it.

Ad Hominem

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Poisoning the Well

Undermining an opponent’s credibility before he or she gets a chance to speak.

False Authority

Relying on claims of expertise when the claimed expert (a) lacks adequate background/credentials in the relevant field, (b) departs in major ways from the consensus in the field, or (c) is biased, e.g., has a financial stake in the outcome.

Appeal to Authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

Glittering Generalities

Just as name-calling words can be used to make a good idea seem bad, glittering generalities are used to make a bad idea seem good. Patriotism. Justice. Truth. Hero. Science. Freedom. These are all glittering generalities. These words sound great, but they mean different things to different people.

Appeal to Nature (Natural Law Fallacy)

Arguing that because human beings are products of the natural world, we must mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is 'unnatural'. A common fallacy in political arguments.

No True Scotsman

You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

Anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.

Tu Quoque

Also Referred to As: The "you too" fallacy, The "two wrongs" fallacy, The "look who's talking" fallacy

Plain Folk

Presenting yourself as (or associating your position with) ordinary people with whom you hope your audience will identify; arguers imply that they or their supporters are trustworthy because they are ‘common people’ rather than members of the elite.

Guilt by Association

linking the person making an argument to an unpopular person or group.

Appeal to Emotion

You attempt to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

Bandwagon

You appeal to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.

Slippery Slope

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

Appeal to the People (stirring symbols)

The communicator distracts the readers or listeners with symbols that are very meaningful to them, with strong associations or connotations.

Appeal to Tradition

This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."

Appeal to Novelty

The fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else.