Relevance and Suffiecient grounds, and Presumption fallacies

Appeal to irrelevant authority

occurs when you support a claim by citing people or sources who lack expertise in the relevant area of the claim or premise you intend to support. 

NB The person or source cited might be an expert in some other area, but their expertise must be relevant to the specific claim or conclusion it aims to support.

So, watch out for claims that are presented as certain or beyond question, and for people who defend such claims by attacking, demonizing or censoring question

Genetic fallacies

occur when you evaluate something - an idea, an object, a practice, a tradition - based upon its source or the conditions under which it was created. 

I sort of agree with Senator Jensen's proposal. But its part of the Democrat's campaign platform so I can't support it. 

Note here that the quality of the proposal is independent of which political party proposed it.  If the proposal is sound, it is so regardless of who agrees with it, just as a poor proposal would be poor no matter which group created it. 

Etymological fallacy

genetic fallacies

-This fallacy occurs when words or definitions are used in their historical meaning without acknowledging that that meaning may have changed over time, or be changing now.

Historians fallacy

genetic fallacies

occurs when we insist - from hindsight - that the future effects of past actions should have been accurately predicted (and predictable) from (then) present circumstances:

You should have known that if you left at 8:30 you would have gotten in that accident. 

               In the case above (#7) deciders in the 1800's may have had no reason to anticipate that oil drilling at the time would lead to environmental problems centuries later. 

              The Historians Fallacy occurs when we assert either (1) that past deciders should have known better from a moral perspective (and done something different) or (2) that past deciders should be evaluated by moral standards developed decades or centuries later.  

Intentional fallacy

which occurs when we evaluate the quality of an idea or product or practice by the intentions of the original creator(s).  In this case, the intentions of the original creators have nothing to do with the artistic or architectural value of their work.

Conversely, a research scientist might try to create a virus that wipes out human life, yet end up curing cancer instead. The cure is no less effective - and the information upon which it is based no less accurate - because of the intentions behind it.  

psychologists fallacy

which occurs when a person's actions or beliefs are attributed to - and supported or opposed - based on their ASSUMED psychological states, rather than on the reasons they might have, or on evidence they might have reviewed. This is also called Mind-Reading.

In this case, the Senator might support the law because he or members of his family or friends were abused. That might not be the case at all, however. Either way, the decision to vote for the law should be based on evidence in its favor and for its potential effectiveness, not on guesses about the psychological states of who supports or opposes it. 

Ad populum fallacies END GENETIC

• common oppion

• bandwagon

• popular wisdom

Common opinion

occurs when ideas, positions, policies, theories and the like are accepted or rejected based on how widely popular or believed they are.  This fallacy is also called consensus gentium (the consent of the people), and argument ad populum (from the people). 

How can you book your ski trip for that weekend? Everybody knows that Friday the 13th is bad luck. If you go then, you'll break your leg for sure. (Common Opinion)

Bandwagon

occurs when you decide to do something simply because many other people are doing it. 

I know you hate horror movies. So do I. But everyone else is going, and it probably won't be that bad. I'll even buy the tickets. Come on, let's go. (Bandwagon)

Popular wisdom

occurs when you cite a common phrase or saying as a reason for believing or doing something.

I just read a survey in which over 80% of the people asked reported that they had been abducted by space aliens. I don't know anybody whose said that but that's too many people saying it for it not to be true.  (Common Opinion) Like they say, "there's wisdom in crowds." (Popular Wisdom)

Appeal to emotion NOT GENETIC

attempt to lead people to accept or reject claims or premises by manipulating or exploiting their emotions, rather than by presenting evidence or sound reasons: 

How can you vote against that school funding proposal? Don't you know you'll be stealing food and books from poor children? You should be ashamed of yourself. 

appeals to self-interest and appeals to force

attempt to lead people to accept or reject claims or premises based on the practical consequences of those claims and/ or premises for them as individuals:

We need to stop that new shopping center from being built. It might be great for the city but it will make traffic in our neighborhood increase by 27%. Who wants that?

adverse conseqeunces

occurs when you accept or reject an idea because of its consequences for you, not because of the evidence and reasons offered for or against it

I just can't accept the idea that there is no God. If that were true, I'd have to reconsider everything about how I've lived my life so far. 

Rationalization

occurs when you use excuses to justify a position or event.

1. I can't believe Sharon beat me at Tennis. That new racket I bought must have been defective. 

2. I can't believe they didn't ask me to go kayaking with them. They must have known I had to work this weekend. 

special pleading

occurs when you apply different rules or criteria to yourself than you do to others.For example:

1.  Rich people should definitely pay higher taxes. But I only made 1.8 million dollars last year. Plus I have a big house to maintain and I live in an expensive state and my business didn't do so great last year, so I'm not rich.  Actually, I could do with a tax cut. 

Wishful thinking

occurs when you assume that because you want something to be true it is or will be true.For example: 

1. The doctors said Greg's surgery has a 30% success rate. But he's tough. I know he'll be one of the success stories. 

ad hominem

attack on the person, not evidence, person themselves, almost always negative but sometimes positive

direct ad hominem

call the person making the argument stupid personal attack

circumstantial ad hominem 

lot harder to see fallacy, attack what the person is saying based on circumstatsing job title, job history, advertiser who works for a cigarette company claim - smoking is healthy, separate claim and evaluate the evidence claim and evidence (not who is making it) one exception - where someone is legitement authority- then don’t seperate

bias ad hominem

a cognitive bias where judgment of an argument is unfairly influenced by factors about the person presenting it, not the argument's content itself. The argument's validity is judged by the person's traits or flaws, not by the evidence. 

motivated reasoning ad hominem

if the person beneifts somehow of it being true or false ‘claim’

Tu Quague 

you do it too/ dont do it yourself - text while driving, mom does it too 

Appeals to ignroance 

assert either that (A) because we do not (presently)  have evidence against claim X, that proves that claim X is true; or (B) because we do not (presently) have evidence for claim X, that definitely proves that claim X is NOT true

For example:

You can't prove you didn't commit the crime, so you must have committed the crime (not X). 

We can't prove that you are guilty of the crime, so you must be innocent (not X). 

countless counterfits

occurs when you assert that there is too much apparent proof (but no actual evidence for) a claim or belief, so it must be true.

2. There are just too many unexplained occurrences and too many stories about them spanning all cultures and times. Ghosts must exist. 

3. There have been rumors about him having "issues" with his female employees for years, and it's not like he's ever denied them. He must be doing something illegal

Casual fallacies

assert a causal link between two things - e.g. that X causes Y - as if X is sufficient to cause Y, when it is not. These fallacies include:

• Post Hoc (False Cause),

• Causal Over-Simplification,

• Confusing Necessary with Sufficient Conditions,

• Confusing Cause with Effect,

• Ignoring Common Cause, 

  • Slippery Slope (Domino)

Post Hoc 

asserts a causal link between two events that are in fact independent of each other. (It's full name is Post Hoc, ergo propter hoc, i.e. After this, therefore because of this): 

For example:

1. Every time I wash my Jeep it rains. 

2. Whenever I use my lucky pen I get an A on my exams. 

Correlation is not causation

Just because two events are correlated (occurring in close temporal proximity) does not mean that one causes the other

Causal over simplficiation

occurs when you assert that X caused Y (as if X were the only cause) when there were in fact many causes for Y (even including X)

For example:

1. Kids are so violent today. It's all because they play too many video games.  (other potential additional causes?) 

2. Myra had a heart attack because she has a  stressful job. (And maybe smokes, eats unhealthy food, has a heart defect, etc)

Confusing necessary with sufficeint conditions 

occurs when you assume that meeting one necessary condition for producing an event is enough (in itself) to bring that event about. 

For example: 

1. My car should start. I just put gas in it. (But maybe the battery is dead?)

2. That plant should be growing a lot faster. I water it all the time.  (Maybe it ALSO needs more sun?)

Confusing cause and effect

reverses what is causing what

2. Karrie is a really good tennis player. That must be why she plays all the time. (Maybe she's good because she plays so often?)

3. Tara's garden is really pretty. That must be why she spends so much time in it. (Maybe it's pretty because she spends so much time on it?)

Ignoring a common cause

overlooks the likelihood that two events might both be caused by another underlying condition or set of conditions. 

For example:

1. As sales of ice cream cones increase, the rate of drowning deaths also increases. Therefore, ice cream cones cause drowning.  (More likely: both increase during warmer weather). 

2. Since 1950, both atmospheric CO2 levels and obesity rates have increased. So Co-2 causes obesity. (More likely: wealthier populations produce more of both)

Slippery slope domino 

asserts that because one event occurs, several more events will necessarily happen as a direct result of the first. NB In this fallacy, the speaker asserts that this and then this and then this will definitely happen in a causal chain or sequence without providing any evidence for why we would definitely move from one event to the next to the next, etc. 

For example: 

1. You know what happens when you let kids eat those little cheddar cheese goldfish? Anarchy, that's what! First they eat the goldfish. Then they stop doing their homework and start cheating on exams. Then they think it's okay to set cats on fire. Next they're rioting in the streets, letting animals loose from the zoos, blowing up bridges, and driving

Predicitive fallacies: gamblers fallacy

occurs when you assume that the likely outcome of some future occurrence will be affected by a series of past outcomes.

For example:

1. I've missed my last three free throws, so I'm bound to make this one.  [Likelihood of making this specific shot remains 50/50 and is entirely unaffected by how many I made or missed previously). 

2. We've had rain five weekends in a row; we're due for some sunny weather.  [Likelihood of rain/no rain this specific weekend remains 50/50 and is entirely unaffected by past weekends].

NB A variant of the Gambler's Fallacy

occurs when you make up a fictional statistic in support of your point. For example: 

1. I bet 90% of people would agree with me that these are the best headphones on the market.

2. Ask them now. I bet a majority of people here would admit that Larsen is the best candidate. 

Contrary to fact 

you assert that if you had done some thing different in the past, some definite alternative result would certainly exist in the present.

In this fallacy, you assert a conditional - an "If" statement of something that could have happened, but didn't - and then draw a definite conclusion from what would have happened - something you cannot possibly know given that (a) the hypothetical "If" did not in fact happen, and (b) many other events have intervened between when the "if" would have happened and its alleged predicted outcome  results.

2. If Sheena had left the party earlier, she wouldn't have gotten into a car accident.  

3. If gun powder had never been invented, human history would have been a lot more peaceful. 

4. If my parents had encouraged me, I would have been a professional tennis player by now. 

Sunk cost

you continue a behavior or effort because of past investments, even if the current or future costs will out-weigh the likely potential benefits.

For example:

1. I'm stuffed, and I've only finished half my meal. But it was expensive, and I can't take the leftovers with me, so I'll just finish it all.  [NB This fallacy hinges also on "loss aversion," the idea that once we pay for something we will insist upon "getting our money's worth" even if that gives us less overall satisfaction then we would have received if we'd just used what we needed and gave the rest up]. 

Nirvana fallacy

asserts that if we cannot secure a perfect future outcome, we should make no effort to make incremental changes in the meantime. This fallacy is also described as "making the perfect the enemy of the good."

For example:

1. Those scholarships will help some kids go to the charter high schools with the best outcomes. But if we can't help all the poor children we shouldn't help any of them. 

2. Investing in solar and wind power is just a distraction. What's the point if we can't entirely eliminate the use of fossil fuels? We need to shut down all the oil companies and completely ban cars and buses and planes and all other uses of oil. That's the only way forward. 

sample size 

When considering Sample Size, the broader or more extensive the claim, the more data you need to support it.

If you want to know what the most widely used brand of cell phone is among Albright College seniors, then the more seniors you obtain data from, and the more varied a group of seniors you obtain data from (e.g. considering gender, economic status, etc.) the more RELIABLE the results of your survey will be.

          If you conclude that the I-phone is the most widely used brand, but you get survey results ONLY from 8 seniors - out of a class of hundreds of seniors - or ONLY from 8 men (out of a class that is more varied) then your data is UNRELIABLE because your data set (size) is too small and not representative of the whole. Thus any your conclusion you draw from this data - about Seniors as a class - is not  sufficiently supported (i.e. it lacks sufficient grounds). 

Representative

Broader or more extensive conclusions require not only bigger data sets, but data sets that are accurately REPRESENTATIVE of the entire group you are drawing a general claim or conclusion about.

             For example, if you want to know about what the most widely used cell phone brand is among the entire Albright Community, but you ONLY survey students, or ONLY survey staff members, or ONLY survey athletes, or ONLY survey women, or ONLY survey people under 27 years of age, you will have UNRELIABLE data because your data set or sample is UNREPRESENTATIVE of the entire group. 

Hasy over-generalization

a fallacy that occurs when you generalize from a few data points (e.g. a few survey results) or a few individuals (who are not well representative of the whole group you are generalizing about) to a much broader conclusion or causal pattern, in this case, moving from the (set of) 8 survey results to a conclusion about the class (set) of all seniors in general. 

            If you want to make a broader or more extensive claim - e.g. about what the most widely used brand of cell phone is among all members of the Albright community - you would need a much bigger and more varied data set with survey results from hundreds of people including students, staff, faculty, and across a range of demographic traits (e.g. age, gender, etc.).

Question begging

occurs when you assert the conclusion you are trying to support in one or more of the premises used to support the conclusion. also occurs when you assert claims or conclusions that are unfalsifiable, that is, when no evidence can possibly count against them.

. Everyone wants the new iPhone because it is the most desirable phone they on the market!

2. God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of  God.

1. People who deny the truth of Marxism are simply dancing to the tune of their capitalist masters, as Marx understood so well.

[NB The argument is that if you disagree with Marx, you are actually proving him right]. 

Halo ad hominem

when you take someone's personal attributes or circumstances as - in themselves - positive evidence in favor of the claim or conclusion they are presenting.

This is a variant of the Halo and Horn Effects, where people who are judged (a) more physically attractive, or (b) as having more moral characters, or as (c) conforming more closely to our personal biases (political, religious, etc.), or (d) as being more similar to us in demographic traits (age, ethnicity, etc.) are automatically deemed more competent - and their arguments or evidence better -

2.  I'm so happy they hired Coach Marks. He had a really successful career playing in the NFL, so I'm sure he'll be a great teacher. (Halo - assumes that just because he was successful at one thing, so he'll be successful at another - very different - activity).

Two wrongs 

 a closely related fallacy, you defend against one criticism by pointing out the critic's unrelated potential wrong doing.

NB You will often hear the assertion that "two wrongs don't make a right," i.e. that just because someone has done some wrong to you does not justify you in doing some comparable harm to them:

For example:

1.  He hit me first, so I had to punch him.

2. She destroyed my project, so I had to slash her bike tire. 

however, refers more to a deflecting of potential criticism by pointing out some questionable point or behavior on the critic's part:

This can also be referred to as WhatAboutism or WhatAboutery, for example, if you respond to a criticism of your position or behavior by simply protesting - " but what about what they are doing, saying, " etc. 

1. Senator Booker has questioned my Transportation bill, but only eight years ago he was accused of tax evasion.

Poisoning the well

wherein someone's claims or conclusions are undermined by (a) spreading negative information about the person making the claim  or argument, and/or by (b) associating that person with groups that have controversial associations:

For example:

1. We can't support that Republican proposal. Some of their campaign funding is from the NRA. They support school shootings. (GBA)

2. We can't support that Democratic proposal. Some of their campaign funding is from PETA. They support blowing up science labs that do animal research. (GBA)

Personal increduilty and adverse consequences

refuse to admit ANY possibility that your claims or arguments might be wrong (this includes the Personal Incredulity and Adverse Consequences rationalizations for accepting or rejecting claims or evidence)

For example:

(a) I refuse to believe that my friends were lying to me. (Personal Incredulity)

(b) I just can't believe that reincarnation isn't real. (Personal Incredulity)

(c) If that were true, I'd have to start this project all over. It can't be true. (Adverse Consequences)

Moving the goal posts 

systematically reject ANY counter-evidence to your claims or conclusions, while demanding ever more evidence from those you disagree with

Appeal to purity

t asserts that (a) no "true" member of a favored group would do or believe something unfavorable, and/or that (b) only the purest or most extreme representatives of a group count as "true" members of that group. 

Typically, this assertion is made in response to evidence that someone who is a member of the favored group HAS done or said or believed what the arguer insists any "true" representative of that group would not. (This is a form of denying counter-evidence).

For example:

1. No true Christian believes in evolution.

Echo chamber

search out or accept ONLY evidence or reasons that support your beliefs or theories, (also described as inhabiting an Echo Chamber, in which everyone agrees with everyone else), and / or

ignore, omit, or actively suppress counter-evidence, (also described as being subject to a Filter Bubble, in which all information you receive is delivered based on what you already think, believe, are interested in, etc., based on your past internet activity, purchasing behavior, demographics, etc.) and/or

Red herrings 

distractions), changing the topic to deflect potential criticism, or posing trivial objections to much broader positions or criticisms (this is also called quibbling or nit picking) 

For example:

1. Does our company support the new environmental regulations? Well, last year we donated nearly 1 million dollars to Save the Whales. Does that answer your question?  (Red Herring)

Straw men

reduce any criticisms or opposing positions to "straw men," usually by mocking those criticisms or positions to make them sound as absurd as possible

For example:

1. You don't support increasing the defense budget? So you want to leave the nation defenseless.

2. Evolution? No, I just can't accept that humans came from bugs.

3. You're pro-choice? So you think parents should be able to kill their children?

DICE denying or ignoring counter evidence

dismiss expert oppinion