Philosophy Fallacies

Appeal to Force; Fallacies of Relevance

This fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader, whether an individual or a group of people

Appeal to Pity; Fallacies of Relevance

The arguer attempts to support a conclusion by evoking pity from the reader or listener, whether directed toward the arguer or toward some 3rd party

Appeal to People, Direct Approach

Occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd

Appeal to People, Indirect Approach

When the arguer aims their appeal at one of more individuals in the crowd, focusing on some aspect of the relationship to the crowd

Argument against the Person; ad hominem abusive

the second person responds to the first person's argument by verbally abusing the first person

Argument against the Person; ad hominem circumstantial

the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent's argument by alluding to the opponents circumstances. The respondent hopes to show that the opponent is predisposed to argue the way they do and should therefore not be taken seriously.

Argument against the Person; tu quoque ("you too")

the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith

Accident

this fallacy is committed when a general rule is wrongly applied to a specific case

Straw Man

this fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of attacking it more easily, demolishes the distorted argument , and then concludes that the opponents real argument has been demolished

Missing the Point

This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn.

Red Herring

this fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. Either a conclusion is then drawn about this different issue or it is simply presumed that a

Fallacies of Weak Induction

occurs when the inductive connection between the premises and the conclusion of an argument is not strong enough to support the conclusion

Appeal to Unqualified Authority; Fallacies of Weak Induction

the cited authority or witness lacks credibility

Appeal to Ignorance; Fallacies of Weak Induction

this fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and then the conclusion makes a definite assertion about that thing

Hasty Generalization; Fallacies of Weak Induction

this is a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations where there is a high likelihood that a selected sample is not representative of the group

False Course; Fallacies of Weak Induction

this fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined casual connection that probably does not exist

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc; Fallacies of Weak Induction

this variety of the fallacy presupposes that just because one event precedes another event, the first event causes the second

Non Causa Pro Causa; Fallacies of Weak Induction

this fallacy is committed when what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all and the mistake is based on something other than mere temporal succession

Oversimplified Cause; Fallacies of Weak Induction

occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause

Gambler Fallacy; Fallacies of Weak Induction

this is committed whenever the conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related

Weak Analogy; Fallacies of Weak Induction

this fallacy, which affects inductive arguments from analogy, is committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion.

Slippery Slope; Fallacies of Weak Induction

this is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction for which there is insufficient reason to think will actually take place

Begging the Question; Fallacies of Presumption

this fallacy is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion

Complex Question; Fallacies of Presumption

this fallacy is committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the form of a single question and a single answer is then given to both of them

False Dichotomy; Fallacies of Presumption

this fallacy is committed when a disjunctive ("either...or") premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion

Suppressed Evidence; Fallacies of Presumption

this fallacy occurs when in an inductive argument, the arguer ignores important evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion

Equivocation; Fallacies of Ambiguity

this fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument

Amphiboly; Fallacies of Ambiguity

this fallacy occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation

Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

arguments that commit these fallacies rely upon a deceptive similarity in linguistic structure to other arguments that are good in every respect

Composition; Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

this fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts to the whole

Division; Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

this fallacy is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to while, division goes from whole to parts