Pyrrho
8th November 2003, 12:56 PM
Primary reference has been "Fundamentals of Logic - Second Edition", by James D. Carney and Richard K. Scheer, (C) 1974 Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., ISBN 0-02-319430-8
There are more references available on the web.
ad hominem - committed when reasons given for a conclusion are no more than a criticism of a person or their particular circumstances.
tu quoque or "You're Another" - committed when an argument is answered by responding with the same or similar arguments which are irrelevant to the conclusion. Also, when an argument is answered by showing that the opposing party has committed the same error.
ad populum or Appeal to Popularity - the argument is held to be true because it is widely held to be true. "Most people belief in psychic phenomena, so there must be something to it."
ad misericordiam or "Appeal to Pity" or "Appeal to Emotion" - a form of ad populum which attempts to invoke sympathy in order to support a conclusion. "Sure, he might be a fraud, but he's helping people through their grief."
ad baculum or "Appeal to Force" or "Appeal to Consequences" - committed when the argument takes the form of "might makes right" or warns that if the conclusion is not accepted then dire consequences will result. Reported to have been popularized by Al Capone.
ad verecundiam or "Appeal to Authority" - committed when one attempts to support a conclusion by citing some person(s) who already asserts the same conclusion, but who is not qualified to assert that conclusion. Often occurs when the arguer cites themselves as the authority. Note: if the authority cited is a reliable, qualified authority concerning the conclusion, this can be a valid argument. The fallacy lies in citing an authority who is not reliably qualified to assert the conclusion.
ad ignorantiam or "Argument from Ignorance" - committed when the conclusion is asserted as true because there is no proof that it is false, or false when there is no proof that it is true, as in "there is no proof that p is false, therefore p is true" and vice-versa. An exception to this fallacy occurs in the court of law, when a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Another exception occurs in the sciences, when a statement may be considered false on the basis of the failure to find evidence for the statement, presupposing that the scientist(s) are sufficiently expert in the area so that if evidence where there, they would find it. "You can't prove it isn't so, so it must be so."
petitio principii or "Begging the Question", "Circular Reasoning" - occurs when an argument is used to suppport itself, as in p is true, therefore p is true, or p is true because q is true, q is true because r is true, and r is true because p is true. The conclusion repeats the reason or premise. "We know the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible."
Complex Question - the arguments presuppose that the conclusion is true. Also known as a "Catch-22" or "double bind" or "forcing the conclusion". Often illustrated by the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Genetic Fallacy - often a variation of ad hominem, The arguer describes what process led someone to a conclusion and infers from that process that the conclusion is false. "He committed several logical fallacies in his argument, so he's wrong when he says that 2 + 2 = 4"
Straw Man - committed when a conclusion is misinterpreted or misrepresented an attempt is made to refute the misinterpreted or misrepresented conclusion. "You say there is no God, so that means you support Satanists. Anything a Satanist says can't be true, so you're wrong!"
post hoc or "False Cause" or "False Analogy" - argument in which one gives an incorrect or unrelated reason for a given conclusion. "You use your mind to move your muscles, don't you? So this proves that mind has control over matter. Uri Geller's power to bend spoons with his mind is therefore real."
Special Pleading - the arguer considers only those reasons which support the conclusion. To avoid this fallacy the arguer must consider reasons both pro and con. "My ideas are being suppressed by the dominant paradigm. We need to change the way science approaches things in order to accomodate my ideas."
Hasty Generalization - committed when the arguer infers from an insufficiently large or quantitatively unrepresentative sample (fallacy of small sample) or when one infers from a peculiarly selected or qualitatively unrepresentative sample (fallacy of biased statistics). "9 out of 10 dentists prefer toothpaste A, based on a survey of 45 dentists."
Equivocation - occurs when words or expressions having multiple meanings are used inconsistently and the correctness of the argument depends on consistent definition. "When I said 'red', I meant 'infrared'. Unless it's blue. It's all subjective anyway."
Fallacy of Division - committed when someone argues that something which is true only of the whole is also true of its parts taken separately.
Fallacy of Composition - committed when someone argues that what is true only of the parts is also true of the whole.
Fallacy of Accent - committed when a statement is accented in a way that changes its meaning, and is used in an argument.
False Dilemma - arguer asserts that there are only two possibilities for a conclusion, when there are actually more.
There are more references available on the web.
ad hominem - committed when reasons given for a conclusion are no more than a criticism of a person or their particular circumstances.
tu quoque or "You're Another" - committed when an argument is answered by responding with the same or similar arguments which are irrelevant to the conclusion. Also, when an argument is answered by showing that the opposing party has committed the same error.
ad populum or Appeal to Popularity - the argument is held to be true because it is widely held to be true. "Most people belief in psychic phenomena, so there must be something to it."
ad misericordiam or "Appeal to Pity" or "Appeal to Emotion" - a form of ad populum which attempts to invoke sympathy in order to support a conclusion. "Sure, he might be a fraud, but he's helping people through their grief."
ad baculum or "Appeal to Force" or "Appeal to Consequences" - committed when the argument takes the form of "might makes right" or warns that if the conclusion is not accepted then dire consequences will result. Reported to have been popularized by Al Capone.
ad verecundiam or "Appeal to Authority" - committed when one attempts to support a conclusion by citing some person(s) who already asserts the same conclusion, but who is not qualified to assert that conclusion. Often occurs when the arguer cites themselves as the authority. Note: if the authority cited is a reliable, qualified authority concerning the conclusion, this can be a valid argument. The fallacy lies in citing an authority who is not reliably qualified to assert the conclusion.
ad ignorantiam or "Argument from Ignorance" - committed when the conclusion is asserted as true because there is no proof that it is false, or false when there is no proof that it is true, as in "there is no proof that p is false, therefore p is true" and vice-versa. An exception to this fallacy occurs in the court of law, when a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Another exception occurs in the sciences, when a statement may be considered false on the basis of the failure to find evidence for the statement, presupposing that the scientist(s) are sufficiently expert in the area so that if evidence where there, they would find it. "You can't prove it isn't so, so it must be so."
petitio principii or "Begging the Question", "Circular Reasoning" - occurs when an argument is used to suppport itself, as in p is true, therefore p is true, or p is true because q is true, q is true because r is true, and r is true because p is true. The conclusion repeats the reason or premise. "We know the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible."
Complex Question - the arguments presuppose that the conclusion is true. Also known as a "Catch-22" or "double bind" or "forcing the conclusion". Often illustrated by the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Genetic Fallacy - often a variation of ad hominem, The arguer describes what process led someone to a conclusion and infers from that process that the conclusion is false. "He committed several logical fallacies in his argument, so he's wrong when he says that 2 + 2 = 4"
Straw Man - committed when a conclusion is misinterpreted or misrepresented an attempt is made to refute the misinterpreted or misrepresented conclusion. "You say there is no God, so that means you support Satanists. Anything a Satanist says can't be true, so you're wrong!"
post hoc or "False Cause" or "False Analogy" - argument in which one gives an incorrect or unrelated reason for a given conclusion. "You use your mind to move your muscles, don't you? So this proves that mind has control over matter. Uri Geller's power to bend spoons with his mind is therefore real."
Special Pleading - the arguer considers only those reasons which support the conclusion. To avoid this fallacy the arguer must consider reasons both pro and con. "My ideas are being suppressed by the dominant paradigm. We need to change the way science approaches things in order to accomodate my ideas."
Hasty Generalization - committed when the arguer infers from an insufficiently large or quantitatively unrepresentative sample (fallacy of small sample) or when one infers from a peculiarly selected or qualitatively unrepresentative sample (fallacy of biased statistics). "9 out of 10 dentists prefer toothpaste A, based on a survey of 45 dentists."
Equivocation - occurs when words or expressions having multiple meanings are used inconsistently and the correctness of the argument depends on consistent definition. "When I said 'red', I meant 'infrared'. Unless it's blue. It's all subjective anyway."
Fallacy of Division - committed when someone argues that something which is true only of the whole is also true of its parts taken separately.
Fallacy of Composition - committed when someone argues that what is true only of the parts is also true of the whole.
Fallacy of Accent - committed when a statement is accented in a way that changes its meaning, and is used in an argument.
False Dilemma - arguer asserts that there are only two possibilities for a conclusion, when there are actually more.