About Logical Fallacies
A comprehensive list of common fallacies that can mislead us.
I’m not going to fluff this up with a long intro, I’m just going to dive right into it. Spotting and avoiding logical fallacies will help you think more clearly, which means you’ll be better at solving problems and avoiding folly.
Confirmation Bias
We tend to look for evidence that proves us right once we’ve established a firm belief, which means that we are prone to overlooking clear data or evidence that proves us wrong if it doesn’t align with our views.
Sunk-Cost Fallacy
This is arguably the most “expensive” logical error we can make in life, business, and even in things like military and politics. It’s the tendency we have to continue on with an effort or endeavor because of previously invested resources (like time and money), even when the costs outweigh the benefits.
Ad Hominem
This involves attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. It’s often easier to discredit a person based on personal shortcomings rather than disprove a well-made point.
Straw Man
A straw man is a misrepresentation of another person’s position to make it easier to attack.
Slippery Slope
The claim that a small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related (and usually negative) events that result in a horrific downstream result.
False Dilemma (Black & White Fallacy)
Presenting only two options when dealing with a challenge, even when many more exist.
Appeal to Authority
Claiming something is true because an “authority” said so, regardless of facts or evidence.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Assuming that because one thing followed another, the first thing caused the second.
The Bandwagon Fallacy
Assuming that because something is popular, it is therefore correct or good.
The Fallacy Fallacy (Argument ad Logi-cam)
This is the meta-fallacy, literally. It’s the assumption that because someone’s argument contains a logical fallacy, their conclusion must be automatically wrong.
No True Scotsman
The Scottish blood in me loves this one. When a counter-example is offered to a universal claim, the speaker changes the definition of the group to exclude their initial “impure” example.
Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
Claiming a statement is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false, or vice versa.
The Texas Sharpshooter
What a name. This occurs when someone chooses a cluster of data to support their argument while ignoring the rest, or finds a pattern after the fact. The name comes from a gunman who shoots at a barn wall and then draws a bullseye around a cluster of holes.
Genetic Fallacy
Judging something as good or bad based solely on where it comes from rather than its current merit.
Burden of Proof (Onus Probandi)
Shifting the responsibility of proof to the person who denies the claim, rather than the person making it.
The Middle Ground Fallacy (Argumentum ad Temperantiam)
The assumption that the truth must lie exactly in the middle of two opposing viewpoints.
The Gambler’s Fallacy
The belief that if an event happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa), even when the events are mathematically independent.
Equivocation (The “Doublespeak” Fallacy)
Using a word or phrase in an ambiguous way to muddle the truth, or falsely use an interpretation of a word or definition to make a claim.
The Anecdotal Fallacy
Citing a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument or compelling evidence.
Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum ad Passiones)
An argument made by manipulating the recipient’s emotions (pit, fear, pride, joy) rather than using valid reasoning.
The Composition/Division Fallacy
Assuming that what’s true of a part must be true of the whole, or assuming what’s true of the whole must be true of the parts.
Tu Quoque (The “You Too” Fallacy)
A type of ad hominem where you avoid criticism by turning it back on the accuser. It’s the logical equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?”
Special Pleading
Moving the goalposts or making up an exception when a claim is shown to be false.
Some Fallacy Prevention Tactics
Instead of trying to tear down a view that doesn’t align with your own, create a “steel man” where you try to make the opposing argument as well or better than a dissenter of your own view could.
Require concrete answers and definitions such that ambiguous and changing language can’t be used. Standardized language keeps the focus on proving (or disproving) a claim using logical, sound evidence.
Separate sources from claims as to not conjoin a person’s character and a logical claim that is being made.
Shift from binary labels to probabilistic scales, since most things in reality are not binaries (completely true or false).
Be able to see past your own biases and worldviews, such that you can evaluate the logical foundation of what you believe.
Search for disconfirming evidence that disagrees with your strongly held belief.
Check the burden of proof, as it’s not on you to prove something in the absence of evidence (a negative).
Ask if the evidence provided actually necessitates the conclusion.
Last but not least, don’t be pretentious and call out a specific fallacy if you hear it being used. Just refocus the conversation to validating claims being made so it doesn’t get taken off track.
Best,
Jared