Fallacies

Matteo Dell’Amico provides this feature in Italian

Index

  1. Ad Hominem [page not ready]
  2. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque [page not ready]
  3. Appeal to Authority [page not ready]
  4. Appeal to Belief [page not ready]
  5. Appeal to Common Practice [page not ready]
  6. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief [page not ready]
  7. Appeal to Emotion [page not ready]
  8. Appeal to Fear [page not ready]
  9. Appeal to Flattery [page not ready]
  10. Appeal to Novelty [page not ready]
  11. Appeal to Pity [page not ready]
  12. Appeal to Popularity [page not ready]
  13. Appeal to Ridicule [page not ready]
  14. Appeal to Spite [page not ready]
  15. Appeal to Tradition [page not ready]
  16. Bandwagon [page not ready]
  17. Begging the Question [page not ready]
  18. Biased Sample [page not ready]
  19. Burden of Proof [page not ready]
  20. Circumstantial Ad Hominem [page not ready]
  21. Composition [page not ready]
  22. Confusing Cause and Effect [page not ready]
  23. Division [page not ready]
  24. False Dilemma [page not ready]
  25. Gambler’s Fallacy [page not ready]
  26. Genetic Fallacy [page not ready]
  27. Guilt By Association [page not ready]
  28. Hasty Generalization [page not ready]
  29. Ignoring A Common Cause [page not ready]
  30. Middle Ground [page not ready]
  31. Misleading Vividness [page not ready]
  32. Personal Attack [page not ready]
  33. Poisoning the Well [page not ready]
  34. Post Hoc [page not ready]
  35. Questionable Cause [page not ready]
  36. Red Herring [page not ready]
  37. Relativist Fallacy [page not ready]
  38. Slippery Slope [page not ready]
  39. Special Pleading [page not ready]
  40. Spotlight [page not ready]
  41. Straw Man [page not ready]
  42. Two Wrongs Make A Right [page not ready]

Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions — please see our copyright notice [page not ready]. If you have questions or comments about this work, please direct them both to the Nizkor webmasters (webmaster@nizkor.org) and to Dr. Labossiere (ontologist@aol.com).

Other sites that list and explain fallacies include:

Description of Fallacies

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or “cogent”) inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply “arguments” which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

Examples of Fallacies

  1. Inductive ArgumentPremise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats.
    Premise 2: Bill is an American cat.
    Conclusion: Bill is domestic house cat.
  2. Factual ErrorColumbus is the capital of the United States.
  3. Deductive FallacyPremise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine.
    Premise 2: Portland is in Maine.
    Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine.
    (Portland is in Maine, but Augusta is the capital. Portland is the largest city in Maine, though.)
  4. Inductive FallacyPremise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel.
    Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white.
    (While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare).