List of fallacies

Last updated

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies.

Contents

Because of their variety, fallacies are challenging to classify. They can be classified by their structure (formal fallacies) or content (informal fallacies). Informal fallacies, the larger group, may then be subdivided into categories such as improper presumption, faulty generalization, error in assigning causation, and relevance, among others.

The use of fallacies is common when the speaker's goal of achieving common agreement is more important to them than utilizing sound reasoning. When fallacies are used, the premise should be recognized as not well-grounded, the conclusion as unproven (but not necessarily false), and the argument as unsound. [1]

Formal fallacies

A formal fallacy is an error in the argument's form. [2] All formal fallacies are types of non sequitur .

Propositional fallacies

A propositional fallacy is an error that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most commonly: [and], [or], [not], [only if], [if and only if]). The following fallacies involve relations whose truth values are not guaranteed and therefore not guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
Types of propositional fallacies:

Quantification fallacies

A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of quantification fallacies:

Formal syllogistic fallacies

Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies – arguments that are logically unsound for lack of well-grounded premises. [14]

Improper premise

Faulty generalizations

Faulty generalization – reaching a conclusion from weak premises.

Questionable cause

Questionable cause is a general type of error with many variants. Its primary basis is the confusion of association with causation, either by inappropriately deducing (or rejecting) causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect.

Statistical fallacies

  • Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of post hoc fallacy.
  • Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a fair coin lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect. [58]
    • Inverse gambler's fallacy – the inverse of the gambler's fallacy. It is the incorrect belief that on the basis of an unlikely outcome, the process must have happened many times before.
  • p-hacking – belief in the significance of a result, not realizing that multiple comparisons or experiments have been run and only the most significant were published
  • Garden of forking paths fallacy – incorrect belief that a single experiment can not be subject to the multiple comparisons effect.

Relevance fallacies

Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. This includes any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion. [67] [68]

Red herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying "If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?"). [69] In jury trial, it is known as a Chewbacca defense. In political strategy, it is called a dead cat strategy. See also irrelevant conclusion.

  • Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. (Note that "ad hominem" can also refer to the dialectical strategy of arguing on the basis of the opponent's own commitments. This type of ad hominem is not a fallacy.)
    • Circumstantial ad hominem – stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong. [70]
    • Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says. [71]
    • Appeal to motive – dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.
    • Tone policing – focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.
    • Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo, 'therefore I leave') – a critic's perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Easily confused with the association fallacy (guilt by association) below.
  • Appeal to authority (argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam) – an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. [72] [73]
    • Appeal to accomplishment – an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. This may often also have elements of appeal to emotion see below.
    • Courtier's reply – a criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.
  • Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion. [74]
  • Appeal to emotion – manipulating the emotions of the listener rather than using valid reasoning to obtain common agreement. [75]
    • Appeal to fear – generating distress, anxiety, cynicism, or prejudice towards the opponent in an argument. [76]
    • Appeal to flattery – using excessive or insincere praise to obtain common agreement. [77]
    • Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – generating feelings of sympathy or mercy in the listener to obtain common agreement. [78]
    • Appeal to ridicule (reductio ad ridiculum, reductio ad absurdum, ad absurdum) – mocking or stating that the opponent's position is laughable to deflect from the merits of the opponent's argument. (Note that "reductio ad absurdum" can also refer to the classic form of argument that establishes a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. This type of reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.) [79]
    • Appeal to spite – generating bitterness or hostility in the listener toward an opponent in an argument. [80]
    • Judgmental language – using insulting or pejorative language in an argument.
    • Pooh-pooh – stating that an opponent's argument is unworthy of consideration. [81]
    • Style over substance – embellishing an argument with compelling language, exploiting a bias towards the esthetic qualities of an argument, e.g. the rhyme-as-reason effect [82]
    • Wishful thinking – arguing for a course of action by the listener according to what might be pleasing to imagine rather than according to evidence or reason. [83]
  • Appeal to nature – judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'. [84] (Sometimes also called the "naturalistic fallacy", but is not to be confused with the other fallacies by that name.)
  • Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis, argumentum ad antiquitatis) – a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern. [85] (opposite of appeal to tradition)
  • Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.) [86]
  • Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true. [87]
  • Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor). [88] (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
  • Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position. [89]
  • Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so. [90]
  • Association fallacy (guilt by association and honor by association) – arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same. [91]
  • Logic chopping fallacy (nit-picking, trivial objections) – Focusing on trivial details of an argument, rather than the main point of the argumentation. [92] [93]
  • Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism. [94] [95] [96]
  • Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. The assumption that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood. [37]
  • Chronological snobbery – a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, known to be false, was also commonly held. [97] [98]
  • Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy. [99] [100]
  • Genetic fallacy – a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. [101]
  • I'm entitled to my opinion – a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion.
  • Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises, in violation of fact-value distinction; e.g. making statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be. This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.
  • Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises [102] [103] in violation of fact-value distinction. Naturalistic fallacy (sometimes confused with appeal to nature) is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
  • Naturalistic fallacy fallacy [105] (anti-naturalistic fallacy) [106] – inferring an impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy, mentioned above. For instance, is does imply ought for any proposition , although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy.
  • Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [107]
  • Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [108]
  • Tu quoque ('you too' – appeal to hypocrisy, whataboutism) – stating that a position is false, wrong, or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with it. [109]
  • Two wrongs make a right – assuming that, if one wrong is committed, another wrong will rectify it. [110]
  • Vacuous truth – a claim that is technically true but meaningless, in the form no A in B has C, when there is no A in B. For example, claiming that no mobile phones in the room are on when there are no mobile phones in the room.

See also

Related Research Articles

In propositional logic, affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement under certain assumptions, and invalidly inferring its converse, even though that statement may not be true under the same assumptions. This arises when the consequent has other possible antecedents.

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False dilemma</span> Informal fallacy involving falsely limited alternatives

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Argument from ignorance</span> Informal fallacy

Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Syllogism</span> Type of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning

A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fallacy</span> Argument that uses faulty reasoning

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument that may appear to be well-reasoned if unnoticed. The term was introduced in the Western intellectual tradition by the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis.

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself.

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam, is an argument that concludes a hypothesis to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise's consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic, the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy.

The association fallacy is a formal logical fallacy that asserts that properties of one thing must also be properties of another thing, if both things belong to the same group. For example, a fallacious arguer may claim that "bears are animals, and bears are dangerous; therefore your dog, which is also an animal, must be dangerous."

The fallacy of four terms is the formal fallacy that occurs when a syllogism has four terms rather than the requisite three, rendering it invalid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affirming a disjunct</span> Formal fallacy

The formal fallacy of affirming a disjunct also known as the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct occurs when a deductive argument takes the following logical form:

<i>Reductio ad Hitlerum</i> Logical fallacy

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also known as playing the Nazi card, is an attempt to invalidate someone else's argument on the basis that the same idea was promoted or practised by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. Arguments can be termed reductio ad Hitlerum if they are fallacious. Contrarily, straightforward arguments critiquing specifically fascist components of Nazism like Führerprinzip are not part of the association fallacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Informal fallacy</span> Form of incorrect argument in natural language

Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their content and context. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually appear to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions, or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit.

In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.

Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so.

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Logic</span> Study of correct reasoning

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. It examines arguments expressed in natural language while formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics.

References

Citations

  1. Hornby, A. S. (2010). "sophist". Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780194799003.
  2. Bunnin & Yu 2004, "formal fallacy".
  3. Bennett, Bo. "Appeal to possibility". Logically Fallacious. Retrieved 2023-03-17.
  4. Carrier, Richard (2012). Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Prometheus Books. pp. 26–29. ISBN   9781616145590.
  5. Curtis, "Fallacy Fallacy".
  6. "Base Rate Fallacy". Psychology Glossary. AlleyDog.com. Archived from the original on 2011-07-07. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  7. Straker, David. "Conjunction Fallacy". ChangingMinds.org. Archived from the original on 2011-08-13. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  8. Bennett, Bo. "Non Sequitur". logicallyfallacious. Archived from the original on 2022-07-01. Retrieved 2021-04-23.
  9. Curtis, "The Masked Man Fallacy".
  10. 1 2 3 Wilson 1999, p. 316.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wilson 1999, p. 317.
  12. Pirie 2006, pp. 133–136.
  13. Wilson 1999, pp. 316–317.
  14. Bunnin & Yu 2004, "informal fallacy".
  15. Damer 2009, p. 150.
  16. Dowden 2010, "Line-Drawing".
  17. Feinberg, Joel (2007). "Psychological Egoism". In Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed.). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 193. ISBN   9781405133203. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-10-04.
  18. Frankena, W. K. (October 1939). "The Naturalistic Fallacy". Mind. 48 (192). Oxford University Press: 464–477. doi:10.1093/mind/XLVIII.192.464. JSTOR   2250706.
  19. Carroll, Robert T. "divine fallacy (argument from incredulity)". The Skeptic's Dictionary . Archived from the original on 10 April 2013. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
  20. Damer 2009, p. 121.
  21. Copi & Cohen 1990, pp.  206–207.
  22. Pirie 2006, p. 46.
  23. Zabel, Joseph (9 August 2017). "The Motte and the Bailey: A rhetorical strategy to know". heterodoxacademy.org. Archived from the original on 4 February 2020. Retrieved 30 January 2020.
  24. Shackel, Nicholas (2005). "The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology" (PDF). Metaphilosophy . 36 (3): 295–320. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2005.00370.x. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2020-09-06. For my purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents a philosophical doctrine or position with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed ...
  25. Shackel, Nicholas (5 September 2014). "Motte and Bailey Doctrines". Practical Ethics: Ethics in the News. Cardiff University / University of Oxford. Archived from the original on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2019. Some people have spoken of a Motte and Bailey Doctrine as being a fallacy and others of it being a matter of strategic equivocation. Strictly speaking, neither is correct.
  26. Fischer 1970, pp.  119–120.
  27. Gula 2002, p. 70.
  28. Pirie 2006, p. 31.
  29. Pirie 2006, p. 53.
  30. Gula 2002, p. 97.
  31. "Fallacy – False Dilemma". Nizkor. The Nizkor Project. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
  32. Marcus Buckingham; Ashley Goodall. "The Feedback Fallacy". Harvard Business Review . No. March–April 2019. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
  33. Fischer 1970, pp.  209–213.
  34. "The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology", John Dewey, The Psychological Review, Vol. III. No. 4. July 1896. p. 367
  35. Fischer 1970, pp.  4–8.
  36. Bunnin & Yu 2004, "Homunculus".
  37. 1 2 "A List Of Fallacious Arguments" . Retrieved 6 October 2012.
  38. Bennett, Bo. "Inflation of Conflict".
  39. Wimsatt, William K.; Beardsley, Monroe C. (1946). "The Intentional Fallacy". Sewanee Review. 54: 468–488. Revised and republished in Wimsatt, W.K. (1954). The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 3–18. ISBN   0813128579. Archived from the original on December 21, 2023.
  40. Taleb, Nassim (2007). The Black Swan. Random House. p. 309. ISBN   9781400063512. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
  41. "Economics A–Z: terms beginning with L". The Economist . Archived from the original on 19 December 2016. Retrieved 21 December 2016.
  42. Semiotics Glossary R, Referential fallacy or illusion Archived 2018-07-26 at the Wayback Machine
  43. Walton 2008, p. 315.
  44. "Fallacy: Begging the Question". nizkor.org. Archived from the original on 2019-03-10. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
  45. "Begging the Question". txstate.edu. Archived from the original on 2015-09-28. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
  46. John D. Ramage; John C. Bean; June Johnson (2016). Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings, Concise Edition, MLA Update Edition. Pearson Education. p. 275. ISBN   9780134586496. Archived from the original on 2020-02-20. Retrieved 2018-04-03.
  47. Pirie 2006, p. 5.
  48. Flew 1984, "No-true-Scotsman move".
  49. Hurley 2007, p. 155.
  50. Bennett, Bo. "Cherry Picking". logicallyfallacious. Archived from the original on 2022-07-01.
  51. Damer 2009, p. 151.
  52. Hurley 2007, p. 134.
  53. Fischer 1970, p.  127.
  54. Pirie 2006, p. 41.
  55. Damer 2009, p. 180.
  56. Gula 2002, p. 135.
  57. Damer 2009, p. 178.
  58. Damer 2009, p. 186.
  59. Patey, Douglas Lane (1986). "Johnson's Refutation of Berkeley: Kicking the Stone Again". Journal of the History of Ideas. 47 (1): 139–145. doi:10.2307/2709600. JSTOR   2709600.
  60. "Invincible Ignorance" by Bruce Thompson, Department of Humanities (Philosophy), Cuyamaca College
  61. Damer 2009, p. 165.
  62. "Argument from personal incredulity – Toolkit For Thinking". www.toolkitforthinking.com. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
  63. "Repetition". changingminds.org. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
  64. "Ad nauseam – Toolkit For Thinking". toolkitforthinking.com. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
  65. "Argument from silence – Toolkit For Thinking". toolkitforthinking.com. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
  66. Copi & Cohen 1990, pp.  105–107.
  67. Gary Curtis. "Logical Fallacy: Red Herring". fallacyfiles.org. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
  68. "Logical Fallacies". logicalfallacies.info. Archived from the original on 2016-02-21. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
  69. Damer 2009, p. 208.
  70. Nizkor. "Circumstantial Ad Hominem". Archived from the original on July 13, 2015. Retrieved September 5, 2018.
  71. Walton 2008, p. 187.
  72. Clark & Clark 2005, pp. 13–16.
  73. Walton 1997, p. 28.
  74. Walton 2008, p. 27.
  75. Damer 2009, p. 111.
  76. "Appeal to Fear". changingminds.org. Archived from the original on 2014-02-22. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
  77. Gula 2002, p. 12.
  78. Walton 2008, p. 128.
  79. "Appeal to Ridicule". changingminds.org. Archived from the original on 2014-02-22. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
  80. "Appeal to Spite". changingminds.org. Archived from the original on 2014-02-22. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
  81. Munson, Ronald; Black, Andrew (2016). The Elements of Reasoning. Cengage Learning. p. 257. ISBN   9781305886834. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2015-11-13.
  82. Bennett, Bo. "Style over Substance". logicallyfallacious. Retrieved 2022-07-06.
  83. Damer 2009, p. 146.
  84. Gary Curtis. "Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Nature". fallacyfiles.org. Archived from the original on 2015-09-24. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
  85. Pirie 2006, p. 116.
  86. Pirie 2006, p. 104.
  87. Pirie 2006, p. 14.
  88. Pirie 2006, p. 39.
  89. Damer 2009, p. 106.
  90. "Appeal to Widespread Belief". Archived from the original on 13 June 2011. Retrieved 6 October 2012.
  91. Gary Curtis. "Logical Fallacy: Guilt by Association". fallacyfiles.org. Archived from the original on 2019-06-05. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
  92. Bennett, Bo. "Logic Chopping". LogicallyFallacious. Archived from the original on 2022-07-01. Retrieved 2021-05-29.
  93. Byerly, Henry (1973). A primer of logic. Harper & Row. ISBN   0060411139.
  94. Whitney, William Dwight; Smith, Benjamin Eli, eds. (1897). The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia. Vol. IV. New York: The Century Co. pp. 3179–3180. Archived from the original on December 21, 2023. Retrieved December 21, 2023.
  95. Westbrook, Robert B. (1991). John Dewey and American Democracy. Cornell University Press. p. 359. ISBN   978-0-8014-8111-6.
  96. VanderMey, Randall; Meyer, Verne; Van Rys, John; Sebranek, Patrick (2012). COMP. Cengage Learning. ISBN   9781133307747. Archived from the original on 2021-10-16. Retrieved 2017-12-12. Bare assertion. The most basic way to distort an issue is to deny that it exists. This fallacy claims, 'That's just how it is.'
  97. "Encyclopedia Barfieldiana". davidlavery.net. Archived from the original on 2013-05-20. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
  98. "Chronological snobbery – Summa Bergania". Archived from the original on February 5, 2012. Retrieved February 11, 2014.
  99. Turkel, Bruce (2016). All about Them: Grow Your Business by Focusing on Others. Da Capo Press. ISBN   9780738219202. Archived from the original on 5 August 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2020 via Google Books.
  100. Bennett, Bo. "Relative privation". Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-12-30 via Logically Fallacious.
  101. Damer 2009, p. 93.
  102. Dowden 2010, "Naturalistic".
  103. "Naturalistic fallacy". TheFreeDictionary.com. Archived from the original on 2013-06-04. Retrieved 2013-07-01.
  104. Dowden 2010, "Is-Ought".
  105. Searle, John R. (January 1964). "How to Derive "Ought" From "Is"". The Philosophical Review. 73 (1): 43–58. doi:10.2307/2183201. ISSN   0031-8108. JSTOR   2183201. Archived from the original on 2017-02-07. Retrieved 2017-09-03.
  106. Walter, Alex (2006). "The Anti-naturalistic Fallacy: Evolutionary Moral Psychology and the Insistence of Brute Facts". Evolutionary Psychology. 4 (1): 34–48. doi: 10.1177/147470490600400102 . ISSN   1474-7049.
  107. Downes, Stephen. "The Logical Fallacies". Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 25 February 2016.
  108. Curtis, "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy".
  109. Pirie 2006, p. 164.
  110. Johnson & Blair 1994, p. 122.

Sources

Further reading

The following is a sample of books for further reading, selected for a combination of content, ease of access via the internet, and to provide an indication of published sources that interested readers may review. The titles of some books are self-explanatory. Good books on critical thinking commonly contain sections on fallacies, and some may be listed below.