List of fallacies For specific popular misconceptions, see List of common if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose misconceptions. correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those log- ical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guar- A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric anteed to yield true conclusions. Types of propositional fallacies: which undermines an argument’s logical validity or more generally an argument’s logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. • Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the These are commonly used styles of argument in convinc- other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.[8] ing people, where the focus is on communication and re- sults rather than the correctness of the logic, and may be • Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an in- used whether the point being advanced is correct or not. dicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.[8] 1 Formal fallacies • Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore Main article: Formal fallacy not B.[8] A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument’s form.[1] All formal fallacies are specific types 1.2 Quantification fallacies of non sequiturs. A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the • Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the something for granted because it would probably be quantifier of the conclusion. the case (or might be the case).[2][3] Types of Quantification fallacies: • Argument from fallacy – also known as fallacy fal- • Existential fallacy – an argument that has a universal lacy, assumes that if an argument for some conclu- premise and a particular conclusion.[9] sion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.[4] • Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking 1.3 Formal syllogistic fallacies into account the effect of prior probabilities.[5] Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in • Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an out- syllogisms. come simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single • Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (il- [6] one of them. licit negative) – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative • Masked-man fallacy (illicit substitution of identi- premise.[9] cals) – the substitution of identical designators in a [7] true statement can lead to a false one. • Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllo- gism that is invalid because both of its premises are [9] 1.1 Propositional fallacies negative. • Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) – a cat- A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns egorical syllogism that has four terms.[10] compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must sat- • Illicit major – a categorical syllogism that is invalid isfy the relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most because its major term is not distributed in the major commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only premise but distributed in the conclusion.[9] 1 2 2 INFORMAL FALLACIES • Illicit minor – a categorical syllogism that is invalid • Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando)– because its minor term is not distributed in the minor when the reasoner begins with what he or she is try- premise but distributed in the conclusion.[9] ing to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion. • Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (il- • licit affirmative) – when a categorical syllogism has Circular cause and consequence – where the conse- a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.[9] quence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. • Fallacy of the undistributed middle – the middle • [11] Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line- term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[25] 2 Informal fallacies • Correlative-based fallacies Main article: Informal fallacy • Correlation proves causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that because there is a correlation between two variables Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for rea- that one caused the other.[26] sons other than structural (formal) flaws and usually re- • quire examination of the argument’s content.[12] Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[27] • Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem)– dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating • Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – ar- proof for its absurdity.[13] guing that, because something is so incredi- ble/amazing/ununderstandable, it must be the result • Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, ar- of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.[28] gumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim • Double counting – counting events or occurrences is true because it has not been or cannot be proven more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which false, or vice versa.[14] leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases ex- ceeding unity. • Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – “I cannot imagine how this could be true; • Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with therefore, it must be false.”[15] more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).[29] • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nau- seam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it • Ambiguous middle term – a common ambi- has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to guity in syllogisms in which the middle term is discuss it anymore;[16][17] sometimes confused with equivocated.[30] proof by assertion • Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised against • Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)– the original wording.[31] where the conclusion is based on the absence of ev- idence, rather than the existence of evidence.[18][19] • Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle statistics collected for the group to which those in- ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad tempe- dividuals belong.[32] rantiam) – assuming that the compromise between • Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the origi- two positions is always correct.[20] nal or historical meaning of a word or phrase is nec- essarily similar to its actual present-day usage.[33] • Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below. • Fallacy of accent – a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning of a sentence is changed • Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing by placing an unusual prosodic stress, or when, in what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a written passage, it’s left unclear which word the [21][22][23][24] a premise. emphasis was supposed to fall on. • Shifting the burden of proof (see – onus probandi) • Fallacy of composition – assuming that something – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is true of part of a whole must also be true of the false. whole.[34] 3 • Fallacy of division – assuming that something true into the content of the process which conditions this of a thing must also be true of all or some of its completed result.[41] parts.[35] • Homunculus fallacy – where a “middle-man” is used • False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrele- for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive vant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated middle-men. Explains without actually explaining source in support of an argument. the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept it- • Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) self, without first defining or explaining the original – refers to the selective excerpting of words concept. Explaining thought as something produced from their original context in a way that dis- by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the [36] torts the source’s intended meaning. head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking [42] • False authority (single authority) – using an expert of (as different but the same). dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell • Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowl- a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority edge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must fallacy. know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their [43] • False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurca- entire field is put to question. tion, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative state- • If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both ments are held to be the only possible options, when sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively [37] in reality there are more. emotionally sensitive. • False equivalence – describing a situation of logical • Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient in- and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none. formation is provided to make a complete compari- • Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fal- son. lacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium in- • Inconsistent comparison – where different methods terrogationum) – someone asks a question that pre- of comparison are used, leaving one with a false im- supposes something that has not been proven or ac- pression of the whole comparison. cepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question lim- • Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ulti- its direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s mate meaning of an expression must be consistent agenda. with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g.