*** Logical Fallacies***

The following is an incomplete compilation of ways people can and have reasoned incorrectly. Fallacies of Distraction

Ignoratio elenchi: Latin, meaning "ignorance of refutation". From the Greek lencoV elenc os, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation. Also known as irrelevant conc lusion or irrelevant thesis the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. False dichotomy: False dilemma. Two choices are given when in fact there are more than two. False presumption: Because something is not known to be true, presume it to be false. Slippery slope: Claim that a small concession is total surrender. Complex question: Unrelated points conjoined as a single proposition. Framing fallacy: Posing a question in a misleading way that if accepted, ste ers the conclusion. Also called "loaded question". Appeals to Emotions instead of Fact or Logic Appeal to fear: Target is persuaded to agree by threats or force. Argumentum ad baculum ('veiled threat', "to the stick"), or argument based on threat. Argu mentum ad metum, appeal to fear. Appeal to pity: Target is persuaded to agree by sympathy. Argumentum ad mise ricordiam. Appeal to envy: Target is persuaded to agree by envy. Argumentum ad invidiam . Appeal to hatred: Target is persuaded to agree by hatred. Argumentum ad odiu m. Appeal to pride: Target is persuaded to agree by pride. Argumentum ad superb ium. Appeal to greed: Target is persuaded to focus on the gains and ignore the ri sks or costs. Argumentum ad edacitam, rapacitam, avaritiam, greed, rapacity, ava rice. Appeal to ignorance: Target is persuaded to agree if can't prove the contrar y. Argumentum ad ignoratium. Appeal to hope: Such as "What ought to be, is". Quod debet esse, est. Variat ions include "Dumbo effect" (encouraging belief that holding a feather can enabl e one to fly) and "placebo effect" (encouraging belief that receiving a treatmen t will make one feel better). Consequences: Target is warned of unacceptable consequences. Prejudicial language: Value or moral goodness is attached to the author or h is position. Bandwagon: A proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to b e true. Appeal to the safety of the herd. Argumentum ad populum, or appeal to th e mass opinion of the people. Fallacy of Authority

Authority: Argumentum ad verecundiam. A proposition is argued to be true bec ause it is supported by experts or authorities. This is widely accepted as a met hod of argument, but strictly speaking, it is a logical fallacy. Also ipse dixit , "he said it himself". Recognition: Everyone recognizes the person as an authority, therefore what he says must be true. Production: The person has done a great deal of authoritative work, therefor e he must be an authority. Power: The person is powerful and successful, therefore he speaks with autho rity, if only by virtue of his position. Need implies Have: I have the need to do it, therefore I have the (legal) au thority to do it (Necesse ergo praesto). Basis for legal doctrine of "inherent" powers. Changing the Subject Attack the Person (ad hominem, "to the man"): (1) Attack the person's character. (2) Attack the person's circumstances. (3) Argue the person does not practise what he preaches. Tu quoque, "You also". (4) Attack a person's identity (race, gender, religion), sometimes calle d Bulverism (named for C.S. Lewis's imaginary character: Ezekiel Bulver). Attack the Authority: (1) Claim the authority is not an expert in the field. (2) Claim experts in the field disagree. (3) Claim the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not bein g serious. Anonymous authority: Cite an authority not named Chronological snobbery: Ad annis, "to the years". Appealing to the age of so mething as proof or disproof of its truth. Style over substance: The manner in which an argument or arguer is presented used as argument to the truth of the conclusion. Inductive Fallacies Hasty generalization: The sample is too small to support an inductive genera lization about a population. Also called apriorism. Unrepresentative sample: The sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a w hole. False analogy: The two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissi milar. Fervent denial: The conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied desp ite the evidence to the contrary. Exclusion: Evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. Fallacies Involving Statistical Arguments Accident: Apply generalization when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception. Converse accident: Apply exception in circumstances where a generalization s hould apply. Causal Fallacies Post hoc ergo propter hoc: "After this, therefore because of this". Because one thing preceded another in time, it is held to cause the other. Joint effect: One thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both

the joint effects of an underlying cause. Insignificant: One thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is in significant compared to other causes of the effect. Wrong direction: The direction between cause and effect is reversed. Complex cause: The cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of th e effect. Overlooked cause: A cause that will greatly change the effect is ignored. Overlooked latency: The cause may be correctly identified but is separated f rom the effect by too long a period of time to support the surrounding argument. Overlooked change: The effect occurs too slowly to be deemed important. Some times called "boiling the frog slowly" (incorrectly, because real frogs will try to get out). Overlooked nonlinearity: The cause-effect link is nonlinear and is affected by complicated feedback loops. Treating chaotic system as mechanical: Attributing the effect to causes as t hough it is predictable, when in fact the system, while parts may exhibit seemin gly predictable patterns, cannot be generally predicted in principle from initia l conditions. A common variety of these fallacies is the Rooster Syndrome giving credit to the rooster crowing for the rising of the sun but applied to giving credit or blame to leaders for events that occur on their watch to which they made little if an y contribution. It may also be called Canute Syndrome or Deification Syndrome, a ttributing godlike powers to the most powerful figure on the scene. Missing the Point Begging the question (petitio principii): The truth of the conclusion is ass umed in the premises, or in hidden assumptions. See "complex question", "framing fallacy". Irrelevant conclusion: An argument in defense of one conclusion instead prov es a different conclusion. Straw man: Misrepresentation. Attack an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument. Fallacies of Ambiguity Equivocation: Use same term with two or more different meanings. See polysem y, taking advantage of words that have different meanings in different contexts. Reification: Treat an abstraction as though it were something concrete. Amphiboly: Use sentence the structure of which allows two different interpre tations. Accent: Emphasis on a word or phrase to suggest a meaning contrary to what t he sentence actually says. Category Errors Composition: Argue that because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, therefore the whole has that property. Division: Argue that because the whole has a certain property, therefore the parts have that property Non Sequitur Affirming the consequent: Argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A. Denying the antecedent: Argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B . Inconsistency: Assertion that contrary or contradictory statements are both true.

Syllogistic (Deductive) Errors Fallacy of four terms: Use a syllogism with four terms. Undistributed middle: Argue that two separate categories are connected becau se they share a common property. Illicit major: Reach conclusion with predicate about all of something when p remises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate. Illicit minor: Reach conclusion with subject of the conclusion about all of something when premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject. Fallacy of exclusive premises: Use a syllogism with two negative premises. Affirmative conclusion from negative premise: Reverse the negation. Enthymeme: Omission of an element of as syllogism as presumed or obvious, wh ich may be logically correct but may also be deceptive, used in persuasive or in formal reasoning. Existential fallacy: Reach particular conclusion from universal premises tha t don't include an existence premise. Analogic "syllogism": Reasoning that if A is similar to B, and B is similar to C, therefore A is similar to C. Of course, the relation of "similar" is not t ransitive, but if the target can be induced to presume it is, this ruse may succ eed in persuading. This is a favorite method in the "informal reasoning" used by lawyers. Fallacies of Explanation Subverted support: The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist. Non-support: Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased. Untestability: The theory which explains cannot be tested. Limited scope: The theory which explains can only explain one thing. Limited depth: The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying cause s. Fallacies of Definition or interpretation Too broad: The definition includes items which should not be included. Too narrow: The definition does not include all the items which should be in cluded. Failure to elucidate: The definition is more difficult to understand than th e word or concept being defined. Circular definition: The definition includes the term being defined as a par t of the definition. Conflicting conditions: The definition is self-contradictory, an oxymoron. Ignoring context: Use of language taken in isolation when the meaning is cha nged by context. See polysemy. Mismatch: Use of language with either greater or lesser rigor and precision than was used by the original author. common cause of legal misinterpretation. Fallacies of Misdirection Red herring: Changing the subject. Claiming an argument is irrelevant when i t is, or presenting another argument as relevant that is not. Misassociation: For example: A is evil because he did a lot of evil thin gs, and he also did B, therefore B is evil and anyone else who does B is evil. A lso a kind of hasty generalization. Misidentification of cause: For example: The law is being violated, therefor e it is defective (violata ergo vitiosa), rather than attributing the failure to the lack of public virtue. Donkey inference: The proposition is provoking vigorous attacks from the bad guys so it must have merit. From the children's game, "Pin the tail on the donk ey."

Fallacies of Miscognition Compartmentalization: Alternating among multiple, inconsistent concepts with little or no attempt to recognize or reconcile the inconsistencies. Kripkean dogmatism: Refusal to engage arguments or evidence inconsistent with one's preferred position. Confirmation bias: Seeking information that confirms one's position. Reductionism: Insistence on concepts that are too simple to account for all the evidence. Dichotomic bias: Insistence on recognizing only two alternatives when th ere are more. Misforecasting: Insisting that an alternative future flowing from one's deci sion is available, likely, or desirable, when it is not. Avoidance of rigor Sometimes called "generalized logic" Reductio ad nauseam: One denies the result he is trying to prove, and lists all the consequences of this denial he can think of, and finally announces the r esult to be established when it actually wasn't. Reductio ad erratum: One denies the result he is trying to prove, and lists all the arguments he can think of, burying an error in the collection, and final ly lifts out the error which appears to have proved the argument but didn't. Proof by Misdirection: Pretending to prove "A, therefore B", when actually p roving "B, therefore A". May be extended into Proof by Convergent Irrelevancies. Proof by Definition: Defines S in a way that the proof works but avoids esta blishing that S is non-empty. Proof by Assertion: Asserting the proof is obvious and moving on. Proof by Admission of Ignorance: Asserting something must be true but does n ot know why. Proof by Non-Existent Reference: Citing to something that cannot be found. Proof by Example: Proves for one instance, but neglects to prove for all ins tances. Proof by Assignment: Leaving the proof as an exercise for the reader. Delayed Lemma: Announces that proof will be provided later, then moves on. I f the proof is never provided it becomes Proof by Infinite Neglect. Proof by Circular Cross-Reference: Creates a chain of reasoning that may be an infinite loop. Proof by Osmosis: The proposition is never stated, and no hint of its proof is given, but by the end of the discussion it is tacitly assumed to be known. Proof by Aesthetics: "This result is too beautiful to be false". Proof by Oral Tradition: Asserting there is a proof, perhaps reported by ano ther, but not having it available.