Ad Hominem

Aka against the man, against the person

Description
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the
person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her
circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a
bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't
believe what you say."
Appeal to Authority
argumentum ad verecundiam
aka. argument from authority, appeal to false authority, argument from false authority, ipse dixit, testimonials [form of]
Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the
audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.
Logical Form:
According to person 1, Y is true.
Therefore, Y is true.
Example #1:
My 5th grade teacher once told me that girls will go crazy for boys if they learn how to dance. Therefore, if you want to make the ladies go crazy for you,
learn to dance.
Explanation: Even if the 5th grade teacher were an expert on relationships, her belief about what makes girls go crazy for boys is speculative, or
perhaps circumstantial, at best.
Example #2:
The Pope told me that priests can turn bread and wine into Jesus body and blood. The Pope is not a liar. Therefore, priests really can do this.
Explanation: The Pope may believe what he says, and perhaps the Pope is not a liar, but the Pope is not an authority on the fact that the bread and wine
are actually transformed into Jesus body and blood. After all, how much flesh and blood does this guy Jesus actually have to give?
Exception: Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument. In the above
example, if Jesus testified that this was actually happening, I guess wed have to believe him. The above example demonstrates the kind of subtle
difference in being an authority on the idea of transubstantiation vs. the actual effectiveness of transubstantiation.
Tip: Question authority -- or become the authority that people look to for answers.
Variation: Testimonials are statements from, authorities, in the sense that they are said to know about what they are testifying to. In business, vendorprovided testimonials should not be taken too seriously as they can easily be exceptions to the norm or just made up -- as in, John G. from Ohio says...
Argument from Ignorance
Ad Ignorantium
(also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity)
Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.
Logical Form:
X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.
X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
Example #1:
Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moons core
is filled with spare ribs.
Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them. Now you might expect that any
reasonable person would know that the moon cant be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get
away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.
Example #2:
To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.
Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create
life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with
impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.
Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning.
Jimbo: Dude, did you spit your gum out in my drink?
Dick: No comment.
Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...) Jackass!
Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than evidence. You might be surprised as to how
many actually are.

Argument from Personal Incredulity

Asserting because one finds something difficult to understand it cant be true.
This fallacy is based more on lack of understanding than lack of information. Often used as a means to distrust science on the basis of it being highly
technical and difficult to put into layman terms, this fallacy is the standby of regressives who wish everything to remain the way things used to be. To
avoid changing ones mind, the person merely avoids advancing their understanding of the topic at hand.
Something being complicated does not necessarily make it untrue. personal incredulity think. If a claim is difficult to understand, it is the job of the
listener to educate themselves before coming to a conclusion as to the truth value of the assertion. Until then, the conclusion should always remain at I
dont know.
Example/s
1. The big bang theory makes no sense. How can there not be a time before the big bang? Scientists just made it all up to try and explain away
Gods creation
2.

I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life
resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.

Begging the Question

aka Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.
Description
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion
is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute
evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly
blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
Examples:
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
Confusing Correlation with Causation
aka Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, this is a fallacy in which the person making the argument connects two events which happen sequentially and assumes
that one caused the other.
For example: I saw a magpie and ten minutes later, I crashed my car, therefore, magpies are bad luck.
Forms
Events C and E both happened at the same time.
Therefore, C caused E.

Events of type C have always been accompanied by events of type E.

Therefore, events of type C cause events of type E.

Example:
Charging that welfare causes child poverty, [Gary Bauer] cites a study showing that "the highest increases in the rate of child poverty in recent years
have occurred in those states which pay the highest welfare benefits. The lowest increasesor actual decreasesin child poverty have occurred in
states which restrain the level of AFDC payments."
Context
Counter-Example:
The bigger a child's shoe size, the better the child's handwriting.
Therefore, having big feet makes it easier to write.
Exposition:
Cum Hoc is the fallacy committed when one jumps to a conclusion about causation based on a correlation between two events, or types of event, which
occur simultaneously. In order to avoid this fallacy, one needs to rule out other possible explanations for the correlation:

A third eventor type of eventis the cause of the correlation.

For instance, consider the Counter-Example: Children's shoe sizes will be positively correlated with many developmental changes, because they are
the common effects of growth. As children grow, so do their feet, and their shoe sizes increase, their handwriting improves, and they develop in many
other ways. So, growth is the common cause of both increased shoe size and improved handwriting in children.

The direction of causation may be the reverse of that in the conclusion.

For instance, suppose that statistics show a positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, namely, the higher number of guns owned,
the higher the rate of violent crime. It would be tempting to jump to the conclusion that gun ownership causes violent crime, but the causal relationship
may be the exact reverse. High rates of violent crime may cause fearful citizens to purchase guns for protection.
This type of error is what distinguishes cum hoc from its better known sibling post hoc. In a post hoc fallacy, the supposed cause temporally precedes
the alleged effect, so there is no possibility that the causal relationship is the reverse.

The correlation may simply be coincidence.

Statistical lore is filled with examples of coincidental correlations, for example see the Quote-Unquote.
Sibling Fallacy: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

False Analogy
A false analogy is a rhetorical fallacy that uses an analogy (comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics) to support an argument, but the
conclusion made by it is not supported by the analogy due to the differences between the two objects.[1] Sometimes these differences are outright
ignored by the person presenting the fallacy; other times, they may not be aware of the differences or that they apply. The fallacy occurs, and is
common, because analogies are just that, analogies, and their parallels are always limited; the differences between things can often overpower their
similarities. One thing people sometimes do for fun is extend a useful analogy or metaphor to the point of absurdity.
Analogies and metaphors can be very useful to explain things to people and often play an important part in learning. However, because of the
prevalence of false analogies they're much less useful in making arguments.
Definition:
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An
analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Examples:
Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of
government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)
Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way
which will affect whether they both have that property.
False Continuum
The continuum fallacy (also known as the heaper fallacy, the sorites fallacy, the fallacy of the beard, line drawing fallacy, bald man fallacy, and fallacy of
the heap) is an informal logical fallacy closely related to the sorites paradox, or paradox of the heap. The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a
vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.
The fallacy appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists
a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity. It is the fallacy of assuming that a
continuum of possible states between two states means they are not meaningfully different. It is a form of equivocation: treating as equivalent two things
that should not be treated as equivalent in context.
Example 1:
The Bald Man
Fred isnt bald now, and if he loses one hair, that wont make him go from not bald to bald either. If he loses one more hair, that also does not make him
go from not bald to bald. Therefore, no matter how much hair he loses, he can never be called bald.
Example 2:
The Heap
The fallacy can be described in the form of a conversation:
Q: Does one grain of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: If we add one, do two grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: And if n grains are not a heap, do n+1 grains form a heap?
A: No.
Q: Therefore, no matter how many grains of wheat we add, we
will never have a heap. Therefore, heaps dont exist!
The argument in both examples is false because one can find clear cases of heads that are, or are not, bald and numbers of grains that are, or are not,
heaps. The fact that one will find borderline cases which are difficult to categorize does not preclude one from categorizing the clear cases.
False Dichotomy
aka: false dilemma, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of
exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization)
Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are
usually characterized by either this or that language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma,
which is when three choices are presented when more exist.
Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these
are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example,
science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a
continuum from one extreme to the other.
Logical Form:
Either X or Y is true.
Either X, Y, or Z is true.
Example (two choices):
You are either with God, or against him.
Explanation: As Obi Wan Kenobi so eloquently puts it in Star Wars episode III, Only a Sith deals in absolutes! There are also those who simply dont
believe there is a God to be either with or against.
Example (omission):
I thought you were a good person, but you werent at church today.
Explanation: The assumption here is that bad people dont go to church. Of course, good people exist who dont go to church, and good church-going
people could have had a really good reason not to be in church -- like a hangover from the swingers' gathering the night before.
Exception: There may be cases when the number of options really is limited. For example, if an ice cream man just has chocolate and vanilla left, it
would be a waste of time insisting he has mint chocolate chip.
It is also not a fallacy if other options exist, but you are not offering other options as a possibility. For example:
Mom: Billy, its time for bed.
Billy: Can I stay up and watch a movie?

Mom: You can either go to bed or stay up for another 30 minutes and read.
Billy: That is a false dilemma!
Mom: No, its not. Here, read Bos book and you will see why.
Billy: This is freaky, our exact conversation is used as an example in this book!
Tip: Be conscious of how many times you are presented with false dilemmas, and how many times you present yourself with false dilemmas.
-A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":
Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this
is the case is made clear by the following example:
Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
It is not the case that 1+1=4.
Therefore 1+1=12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:
Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive.
Examples of False Dilemma
Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."
Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"
"Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music
for a while."
Genetic Fallacy
Description
A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or
thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following form:
The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill
must be wrong."
It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes
from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise).
Examples
"The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of background, his so called 'reform' plan must be a facist program."
"I was brought up to believe in God, and my parents told me God exists, so He must."
"Sure, the media claims that Senator Bedfellow was taking kickbacks. But we all know about the media's credibility, don't we."
Moving from the Goal Post
aka gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of]
Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to
conceded or accept the opponents argument.
The advocate changes the nature of the discussion by seeking to make the opponent tackle a more difficult version of the topic. The topic that was
originally under discussion is recast and the new version favours the advocate. This tactic is often used when the backpedalling advocate feels that he or
she is about to lose the argument. With the "goalposts" in their original position, the opponent would "score". But with the posts moved, the opponent's
"shot" is now "off target".
Logical Form:
Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.
Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.
.....
Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.
(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.
Examples
1. Bella Donna claims that Sybil Antwhisper, her room-mate, is not sharing the housework equitably. Sybil tells Bella to go away and itemise and record
who does what household tasks. If Bella can show that she does more housework than Sybil, then Sybil will mend her ways. A week passes and Bella
shows Sybil clear evidence that Sybil does not "pull her weight" around the house.
Sybil (the advocate) responds: "That's all very well, but I have more work and study commitments than you do you should do more housework than
me... it's the total work of all kinds that matters, not just housework."
2. Three weeks out from the State Election, the Premier and Leader of the opposition are taking part in a televised debate. The issue in contention is the
running of Public Hospitals under the current government. The Leader of the Opposition, Ken Oath, is making his point: "Under your government, the
average waiting times in emergency rooms is four hours. Now that's just not good enough."
The Premier, Phillip Ingheck, replies: "I agree, four hours is clearly not good enough. That's what it was before we came into office. Under my
government the waiting time has actually been reduced from four to two hours." Ken responds: "Well that's not the real issue anyway, it's waiting times
for operations."

Comment
In the first example the implied agreement between Bella and Sybil at the outset was that the amount of housework done by both parties should be
approximately the same. When Sybil was confronted by the evidence however, she quickly and unilaterally "changed the terms of the debate". She did
this because the evidence was against her version of events and she was about to lose the argument on the issue as originally defined.
Whether or not it is morally right to count all forms of work when assessing household contributions is not the issue here. The issue here is that the
ducking and weaving advocate (Sybil) is seeking to change the terms of the dispute to avoid a defeat on the original issue in contention.
In this situation, and if Bella is a skeptic and critical thinker, she would point out that Sybil was attempting to move the goalposts. She would insist that
they resolve the original question as agreed, and that any further discussion or extension of the issue would have to be considered separately. If the
issue had originally been defined as "total work" rather than "housework", then Sybil would have a point. As it is, her argument is weak and ethically
suspect.
In the second example Ken realizes that he had initially used out of date information which did not support his case. Instead of acknowledging this, he
attempts to change the focus of their discussion on Public Hospitals from emergency room waiting times to waiting times for operations. Phillip would be
well advised to point this shift in focus out, and say that he is more than happy to discuss this new issue (waiting times for operations) once the first
issue has been resolved.
Moving the goalposts can be avoided if both parties agree at the outset to clearly define the parameters of the discussion. Time spent doing this is time
well spent. Otherwise discussions can become misdirected, frustrating and pointless.
No True Scotsman
Explanation
The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of ones position. Proposed counter-examples to a
theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member
of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument
which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable
characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become
tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.
The fallacy does not occur in defining a group or label narrowly to begin with, but in narrowing it by excluding evidence that contradicts an initially broad
definition.
Phrases such as "un-American," "un-Christian" or "inhuman" are widely used in politics and media to distance oneself from a subject, defining them as
outside the bounds of what the speaker considers to be truly 'American,' 'Christian' or 'human' behaviour.
A: "For all members in set S, predicate P applies."
B: "Here's X. It's a member of set S, but P does not apply, invalidating your statement."
A: "No. X isn't a member of set S, because P does not apply to it."
Example
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasnt been falsified when in fact it has.
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the
No true Scotsman fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The
existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
Real-World Examples
An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that
faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith
but subsequently lose it, are written off using the No True Scotsman fallacy: they didnt really have faith, they werent true Christians. The claim that
faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.
Non Sequitur
Non sequitur is a Latin phrase that means that which does not follow. It means that the conclusion reached does not follow from the premise(s). Often
examples of non sequitur arguments are hilariously disconnected, but those encountered in the wild can be subtle and may not be easily uncovered. The
reason that such arguments are fallacious in logic should be fairly obvious. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
Examples:

All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates likes women.

I sit at a table to read, and the elements are organized in a table, therefore reading is elementary.

The world was created a few thousand years ago in six days. How do I know? Look! A moose and peaches!

This cat is pushing a watermelon out of a lake. Your argument is invalid.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Aka Post Hoc, False Cause, Questionable Cause, Confusing Coincidental Relationships With Causes
Description
A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form:
1. A occurs before B.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.
The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore
because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the
proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence
to actually warrant such a claim.
It is evident in many cases that the mere fact that A occurs before B in no way indicates a causal relationship. For example, suppose Jill, who is in
London, sneezed at the exact same time an earthquake started in California. It would clearly be irrational to arrest Jill for starting a natural disaster, since
there is no reason to suspect any causal connection between the two events. While such cases are quite obvious, the Post Hoc fallacy is fairly common

because there are cases in which there might be some connection between the events. For example, a person who has her computer crash after she
installs a new piece of software would probably suspect that the software was to blame. If she simply concluded that the software caused the crash
because it was installed before the crash she would be committing the Post Hoc fallacy. In such cases the fallacy would be committed because the
evidence provided fails to justify acceptance of the causal claim. It is even theoretically possible for the fallacy to be committed when A really does cause
B, provided that the "evidence" given consists only of the claim that A occured before B. The key to the Post Hoc fallacy is not that there is no causal
connection between A and B. It is that adequate evidence has not been provided for a claim that A causes B. Thus, Post Hoc resembles a Hasty
Generalization in that it involves making a leap to an unwarranted conclusion. In the case of the Post Hoc fallacy, that leap is to a causal claim instead of
a general proposition.
Not surprisingly, many superstitions are probably based on Post Hoc reasoning. For example, suppose a person buys a good luck charm, does well on
his exam, and then concludes that the good luck charm caused him to do well. This person would have fallen victim to the Post Hoc fallacy. This is not to
say that all "superstitions" have no basis at all. For example, some "folk cures" have actually been found to work.
Post Hoc fallacies are typically committed because people are simply not careful enough when they reason. Leaping to a causal conclusion is always
easier and faster than actually investigating the phenomenon. However, such leaps tend to land far from the truth of the matter. Because Post Hoc
fallacies are committed by drawing an unjustified causal conclusion, the key to avoiding them is careful investigation. While it is true that causes precede
effects (outside of Star Trek, anyways), it is not true that precedence makes something a cause of something else. Because of this, a causal
investigation should begin with finding what occurs before the effect in question, but it should not end there.
Examples
1. I had been doing pretty poorly this season. Then my girlfriend gave me this neon laces for my spikes and I won my next three races. Those
laces must be good luck...if I keep on wearing them I can't help but win!
2. Bill purchases a new PowerMac and it works fine for months. He then buys and installs a new piece of software. The next time he starts up his
Mac, it freezes. Bill concludes that the software must be the cause of the freeze.
3. Joan is scratched by a cat while visiting her friend. Two days later she comes down with a fever. Joan concludes that the cat's scratch must be
the cause of her illness.
4. The Republicans pass a new tax reform law that benefits wealthly Americans. Shortly thereafter the economy takes a nose dive. The
Democrats claim that the the tax reform caused the economic woes and they push to get rid of it.
5. The picture on Jim's old TV set goes out of focus. Jim goes over and strikes the TV soundly on the side and the picture goes back into focus.
Jim tells his friend that hitting the TV fixed it.
6. Jane gets a rather large wart on her finger. Based on a story her father told her, she cuts a potato in half, rubs it on the wart and then buries it
under the light of a full moon. Over the next month her wart shrinks and eventually vanishes. Jane writes her father to tell him how right he
was about the cure.
Reductio ad Absurduum
aka reduce to absurdity
Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd
conclusion. Arguments which use universals such as, always, never, everyone, nobody, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions.
The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.
In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to
an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of
argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the
existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either. This is a false
reductio ad absurdum because he is ignoring evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, and also logical inference. In short, being skeptical of
UFOs does not require rejecting the existence of the Great Wall.
Logical Form:
Assume P is true.
From this assumption, deduce that Q is true.
Also deduce that Q is false.
Thus, P implies both Q and not Q (a contradiction, which is necessarily false).
Therefore, P itself must be false.
Example #1:
I am going into surgery tomorrow so please pray for me. If enough people pray for me, God will protect me from harm and see to it that I have a
successful surgery and speedy recovery.
Explanation: We first assume the premise is true: if enough people prayed to God for her successful surgery and speedy recovery, then God would
make it so. From this, we can deduce that God responds to popular opinion. However, if God simply granted prayers based on popularity contests, that
would be both unjust and absurd. Since God cannot be unjust, then he cannot both respond to popularity and not respond to popularity, the claim is
absurd, and thus false.
Example #2:
If everyone lived his or her life exactly like Jesus lived his life, the world would be a beautiful place!
Explanation: We first assume the premise is true: if everyone lived his or her life like Jesus lived his, the world would be a beautiful place. If this were
true, we would have 7 billion people on this earth roaming from town to town, living off the charity of others, preaching about God (with nobody listening).
Without anyone creating wealth, there would be nobody to get charity from -- there would just be 7 billion people all trying to tell each other about God.
After a few weeks, everyone would eventually starve and die. This world might be a beautiful place for the vultures and maggots feeding on all the
Jesus wannabes, but far from a beautiful world from a human perspective. Since the world cannot be both a beautiful place and a horrible place, the
proposition is false.
Slippery Slope
aka absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino fallacy
Definition: When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and
so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted, but with each step it becomes more
and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by the next thing you
know...
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of
the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to
why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for
such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Logical Form:
If A, then B, then C, ... then ultimately Z!

Example #1:
We cannot unlock our child from the closet because if we do, she will want to roam the house. If we let her roam the house, she will want to roam the
neighborhood. If she roams the neighborhood, she will get picked up by a stranger in a van, who will sell her in a sex slavery ring in some other
country. Therefore, we should keep her locked up in the closet.
Explanation: In this example, it starts out with reasonable effects to the causes. For example, yes, if the child is allowed to go free in her room, she
would most likely want to roam the house -- 95% probability estimate[1]. Sure, if she roams the house, she will probably want the freedom of going
outside, but not necessarily roaming the neighborhood, but lets give that a probability of say 10%. Now we start to get very improbable. The chances
of her getting picked up by a stranger (.05%) in a van (35%) to sell her into sex slavery (.07%) in another country (40%) is next to nothing when you do
all the math:
.95 x .10 x .0005 x .35 x .0007 x .4 = about 1 in 25,000,000.
Morality and legality aside, is it really worth it to keep a child locked in a closet based on those odds?
Example #2:
If you accept that the story of Adam and Eve was figurative, then you will do the same for most of the Old Testament stories of similar literary styles.
Once you are there, the New Testament and the story of Jesus does not make sense, which will lead you to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a
spiritual one. Once you accept that, you wont be a Christian anymore, you will be a dirty atheist, then you will have no morals and start having sex
with animals of a barnyard nature. So you better take the story of Adam and Eve literally, before the phrase, that chicken looks delicious, takes on a
whole new meaning.
Explanation: Accepting the story of Adam and Eve as figurative rarely (it is sad that I cannot confidently say never) leads to bestiality.
Exception: When a chain of events has an inevitable cause and effect relationship, as in a mathematical, logical, or physical certainty, it is not a fallacy.
Tip: The concept of a bad day is part of this fallacy. You wake up in the morning, and you discover that you are out of coffee. From there, you
fallaciously reason that this means you will be grumpy, late for work, then behind all day in work, then have to stay late, then miss dinner with the family,
then cause more friction at home, etc. This is only true if you act it out as if it is true. Of course, with an already bad attitude, you look back on the day,
block out the good and wallow in the bad, just so you can tell yourself, that you were right all along about having a bad day.
Dont let that happen.
Other Examples
1. "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
2. "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
3. "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
4. "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know,
they will be burning all the books!"
Tautology
Aka Circular Reasoning
Throughout this post, Im probably going to mainly use the term tautology rather than circular reasoning because its less to type. Circular reasoning
is, like most fallacies, just what it sounds like: Making a circular argument, or when each stage of an argument refers back to the previous stage, or uses
the previous stage as justification for that one. You just go around in circles.
Another way in which a tautological argument is used is to simply state the same thing twice, but in different ways. Like saying, This is a brand-new
never-before seen product! is considered a tautology because brand-new and never-before seen mean the same thing.
A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is
A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying
that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation
(without touching) of the life force.
Examples:
Lets have a hypothetical conversation:
Me: Why is the Bible true?
YEC: Because the Bible is infallible.
Me: Why is it infallible?
YEC: Because the Bible is the word of God.
Me: How do you know its the word of God?
YEC: Because the bible says it is the word of God.
Me: But how do you know that its telling you the truth?
YEC: Because the Bible is infallible.

We have entered the tautology. The YEC has not brought in outside information into the argument to back up the claim, they simply continue to go in
circles.
Example from Family Life
An example of a tautology thats closer to the second use I explained above is often found in every-day parlance, especially between parents and their
children:
Parent: Its bed time, go to bed.
Child: Why?
Parent: Because I said so.
Final Thoughts
Circular arguments and/or tautologies are yet another illogical way to argue because they do not bring any new information into the discussion. Rather,
they argue what has already been (correctly or incorrectly) stated, and do not back it up with something else.
Tu Quoque (under Ad Hominem)
aka: you too fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)
Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2)
what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. My evidence may be
invalid, but so is yours.
This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only
one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a
hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming that Y is true, but person 1 is acting as if Y is not true.
Therefore, Y must not be true.
Example #1:
Helga: You should not be eating that... it has been scientifically proven that eating fat burgers are no good for your health.
Hugh: You eat fat burgers all the time so that cant be true.
Explanation: It doesnt matter (to the truth claim of the argument at least) if Helga follows her own advice or not. While it might appear that the reason
she does not follow her own advice is because she doesnt believe its true, it could also be that those fat burgers are just too damn irresistible.
Example #2:
Jimmy Swaggart argued strongly against sexual immorality, yet he has had several affairs with prostitutes; therefore, sexual immorality is acceptable.
Explanation: The fact Jimmy Swaggart likes to play a round of bedroom golf with some local entrepreneurial ladies, is not evidence for sexual immorality
in general, only that he is sexually immoral.
Exception: If Jimbo insisted that his actions were in line with sexual morality, then it would be a very germane part of the argument.
Tip: Again, admit when your lack of self-control or will-power has nothing to do with the truth claim of the proposition. The following is what I remember
my dad telling me about smoking (he smoked about 4 packs a day since he was 14).
Bo, never be a stupid a--hole like me and start smoking. It is a disgusting habit that I know will eventually kill me. If you never start, you will never miss
it.
My dad died at age 69 -- of lung cancer. I never touched a cigarette in my life and never plan to touch one.
Other examples
1. Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."
2.

Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."

3.

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and
clothing is wrong!"