DeletedUser
I thought listing these here might save Hellstromm and others the trouble of explaining to others why their arguments aren't valid. I know I didn't include all of them, so are there any others that are common enough to be included?
1. Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument is one that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.
2. Ad ignorantiam
This one basically argues that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.
3. Argument from authority
The basic structure of such arguments is: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. It is possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.
4. Argument from final Consequences
These arguments are based on a reversal of cause and effect, stating that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has.
5. Argument from Personal Incredulity
I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true.
6. Begging the Question
The term “begging the question” is to assume a conclusion in one’s question. The classic example of begging the question is to ask someone if they have stopped beating their wife yet.
7. Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable
Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation.
8. False Analogy
A false analogy is an argument in which false analogies are invoked is to make an analogy between two things that are in fact analogous in many ways – just not the specific way being suggested in the argument.
9. False Continuum
The idea that because there is no definitive line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful.
10. False Dichotomy
Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two to oversimplify the variation to two black and white choices.
11. Genetic Fallacy
This fallacy assumes that something’s current utility is dictated by and constrained by its historical utility.
12. Inconsistency
Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others.
13. No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.
14. Non-Sequitur
This refers to an argument in which a logical connection is implied where none exists.
15. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc
This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B.
16. Reductio ad absurdum
The reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd conclusion, which means that one or more premises must be false. It becomes a fallacy when one stretches the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion.
17. Slippery Slope
This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted.
18. Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning
This is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid.
19. Straw Man
A straw man argument invents a caricature of the opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.
20. Tautology
Tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.
21. The Fallacy Fallacy
A common position that because some random person on the internet is unable to defend a position well, that the position is false. All that has really been demonstrated is that the one person in question cannot adequately defend the position.
22. The Moving Goalpost
A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for “proof” or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.
23. Tu quoque
Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."
1. Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument is one that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.
2. Ad ignorantiam
This one basically argues that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.
3. Argument from authority
The basic structure of such arguments is: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. It is possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.
4. Argument from final Consequences
These arguments are based on a reversal of cause and effect, stating that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has.
5. Argument from Personal Incredulity
I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true.
6. Begging the Question
The term “begging the question” is to assume a conclusion in one’s question. The classic example of begging the question is to ask someone if they have stopped beating their wife yet.
7. Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable
Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation.
8. False Analogy
A false analogy is an argument in which false analogies are invoked is to make an analogy between two things that are in fact analogous in many ways – just not the specific way being suggested in the argument.
9. False Continuum
The idea that because there is no definitive line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful.
10. False Dichotomy
Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two to oversimplify the variation to two black and white choices.
11. Genetic Fallacy
This fallacy assumes that something’s current utility is dictated by and constrained by its historical utility.
12. Inconsistency
Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others.
13. No True Scotsman
This fallacy is a form of circular reasoning, in that it attempts to include a conclusion about something in the very definition of the word itself. It is therefore also a semantic argument.
14. Non-Sequitur
This refers to an argument in which a logical connection is implied where none exists.
15. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc
This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B.
16. Reductio ad absurdum
The reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd conclusion, which means that one or more premises must be false. It becomes a fallacy when one stretches the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion.
17. Slippery Slope
This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted.
18. Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning
This is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid.
19. Straw Man
A straw man argument invents a caricature of the opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.
20. Tautology
Tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.
21. The Fallacy Fallacy
A common position that because some random person on the internet is unable to defend a position well, that the position is false. All that has really been demonstrated is that the one person in question cannot adequately defend the position.
22. The Moving Goalpost
A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for “proof” or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.
23. Tu quoque
Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."
Last edited by a moderator: