fallacies
False Cause: presumes that a perceived relationship between things means it caused it
Correlation doesn’t mean causation→ also called post hoc ergo propter hoc
Could be alternative explanations, confounding variables, reverse causality, etc.
EX: black cats are present near car accidents, they must cause accidents
Ad Hominem: attacking opponents' character or personal traits to undermine their argument
We think behavior is indicative of underlying traits, but not necessarily true
Focus on argument at hand (veil of ignorance), strive to be civil
EX: all he does is watch tv, what would he know about hardwork?
Loaded Question: asking a question with an assumption in it→ can’t be answered w/o looking guilty or losing credibility
Try to call it out for what it is
EX: 1000’s of students have been shot in schools. Do you think america has a gun control issue?
Bandwagon Fallacy: following majority or celebrity opinions as a form of validation, “they must be right”
Try to stick to facts of issue→ popular opinion doesn’t dictate what’s right
EX: my favorite celebrity thinks the death penalty is good, so I do too
Begging the Question: conclusion included in the question→ circular argument
Also known as “petitio principii”- assuming initial point
EX: affirmative action is unfair, you can’t fix the injustice by committing another
Appeal to Authority: using opinion or position of authority to justify stance w/o an actual argument (authority might not even be an expert)
EX: a celebrity parent doesn’t want to vaccinate their kid
Appeal to Nature: argument is that it’s “natural”, but something being natural isn’t always good or bad
EX: natural supplements are good, but some can be poisonous
Composition/Division: assumption that what’s true for a component of X, is also true for all of X→ isn’t necessarily true bc can’t always presume consistency
EX: company successful bc upper management of a company are all successful individuals
Strawman: misrepresentation of one’s argument to attack it easier
Can quote ppl’s words out of context, oversimplifying
EX: abortion is murder… not necessarily depending on the starting premise
Slippery Slope: assuming that if A happens Z will consequently follow, but that’s not necessarily true
EX: if you let a mouse have a cookie… he’ll end up taking over your house
Special Pleading: moving around limitations to create exceptions for a claim is shown to be false, similar to double standards
EX: i know i changed the policy so no one can be late, but i got caught in crazy traffic
Nirvana Fallacy: arguing against or dismissing a solution because it won’t fully solve the problem
EX: Ben Shapiro says school lunches won’t solve child hunger
Black or White: strictly picking on 2 polarized possibilities, when there’s a gray area
Also known as false dichotomy
EX: if you support palestine, you’re anti-semetic
Anecdotal: using a personal experience to refute studies and statistics measuring large groups of people instead of just 1
EX: my mom saying a girl at LAX went missing so I should avoid it because I might get kidnapped too. Stats show it rarely happens
Appeal to Emotion: manipulating someone’s emotional response w/o actual argument
EX: used during elections like Hilary Clinton, but there wasn’t anything on that scale for her to be creating urgency and fear
Tu Quoque: avoiding engaging criticism by turning on someone else and showing they follow the double standard too→ avoid actually addressing the criticism
EX: my brother telling me i shouldn’t eat wingstop because it’s unhealthy. I respond by saying he eats it all the time too, why should I listen?
latin for “you also”
Burden of Proof: the person making the claim puts it on the listener to disprove what they’re saying instead of just proving it themselves
EX: “innocent until proven guilty” → burden of proof on prosecution
No True Scotsman: dismissing counterexamples and defending yourself by redefining certain terms
EX: brown people are always late; i know a brown person that’s always early; you’re not a real brown person if you’re not late
Texas Sharpshooter: cherry-picking data to fit you’re line of reasoning→ manipulating data to make it fit what you want when it could mean something else
EX: a politician can have so many failed policies and 1 successful, but someone can endorse the politician and only boast about 1 policy. Makes the politician seem successful when it’s not the whole story
Fallacy Fallacy: assuming that because a claim has been argued poorly or used a fallacy means that it’s actually wrong
EX: dont trust vaccines because the companies just want money; you respond by saying they’re using a ad hominem so they must be wrong
Personal incredulity: saying a claim isn’t true just bc you can’t understand it
Ambiguity: intrinsically misleading a claim by being vague or having double meanings
Genetic: saying something is good/bad depending on where or who it comes from
EX: a politician automatically believing what a scientist says bc an accredited individual said it, but the scientist can be wrong if you don’t look into it
Middle ground: saying that a compromise of 2 extremities must be the truth, but not necessarily→ if x and z are known to be untrue, then y would be untrue too
EX: NYT interviewing both Harris and Trump voters for an instagram piece