Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity: A link to a listing of logical fallacies
Northern Illinois University ^ | April 7th, 1997 | Perry Greene

Posted on 04/25/2003 2:21:00 PM PDT by Buckeye Bomber

Logical Fallacies

The following list of logical fallacies is taken from Rise Axelrod and Charles Cooper's The Concise Guide to Writing.

Fallacies are errors or flaws in reasoning. Although essentially unsound, fallacious arguments seem superficially plausible and often have great persuasive power. Fallacies are not necessarily deliberate efforts to deceive readers. They may be accidental, resulting from a failure to examine underlying assumptions critically, establish solid ground to support a claim, or choose words that are clear and unambiguous. Here, listed in alphabetical order, are the most common logical fallacies:

Begging the question. Arguing that a claim is true by repeating the claim in different words. Sometimes called circular reasoning.

Confusing chronology with causality. Assuming that because one thing preceded another, the former caused the latter. Also called post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this").

Either/or reasoning. Assuming that there are only two sides to a question, and representing yours as the only correct one.

Equivocating. Misleading or hedging with ambiguous word choices.

Failing to accept the burden of proof. Asserting a claim without presenting a reasoned argument to support it.

False analogy. Assuming that because one thing resembles another, conclusions drawn from one also apply to the other.

Overreliance on authority. Assuming that something is true simply because an expert says so and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Hasty generalization. Offering only weak or limited evidence to support a conclusion.

Oversimplifying. Giving easy answers to complicated questions, often by appealing to emotions rather than logic.

Personal attack. Demeaning the proponents of a claim instead of their argument. Also called ad hominem (Latin for "against the man").

Red herring. Attempting to misdirect the discussion by raising an essentially unrelated point.

Slanting. Selecting or emphasizing the evidence that supports your claim and suppressing or playing down other evidence.

Slippery slope. Pretending that one thing inevitably leads to another.

Sob story. Manipulating readers' emotions in order to lead them to draw unjustified conclusions.

Straw man. Directing the argument against a claim that nobody actually holds or that everyone agrees is very weak.


TOPICS: Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: argument; debate; logic; logicalfallacies; rulesofdiscussion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
Wouldn't it be nice if these fallacies could be avoided on Free Republic? I've fallen victim to the personal attacks example a lot recently. I like this list because it doesn't use the Latin terms that are often used to describe the fallacies. It's easier to understand this way I think.
1 posted on 04/25/2003 2:21:00 PM PDT by Buckeye Bomber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Bomber
Try this logical fallacy on for size . . .

3% of adult males in the U.S. are gay.
I and my 35 adult male relatives are all straight.
Therefore, you must be gay.

LOL.

2 posted on 04/25/2003 2:24:13 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Bomber
There does seem to be a real problem with the FACT that correlation does not equal causation around here.
3 posted on 04/25/2003 2:24:20 PM PDT by annyokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Bomber
I'm having difculty recalling a professional journalist who does not violate these axioms.

Name 10 real quick.

4 posted on 04/25/2003 2:24:58 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Bomber
Shouldn't the title of this thread be:

"How to construct a Liberal argument"?
5 posted on 04/25/2003 2:25:54 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (God bless the coalition troops and their families)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
There does seem to be a real problem with the FACT that correlation does not equal causation around here.

Around here? This fallacy seems to be universal.

6 posted on 04/25/2003 2:28:56 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Bomber
I really thought this was going to use recent news articles as examples.I will try instead to look at myself!
7 posted on 04/25/2003 2:34:43 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
There does seem to be a real problem with the FACT that correlation does not equal causation around here.

You're just saying that because of what the flouride's done to your brain!!!! </sarcasm>

8 posted on 04/25/2003 2:36:12 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
No, no! It because I used my cell phone near the gas pumps at the Texaco station.
9 posted on 04/25/2003 2:37:16 PM PDT by annyokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
I'm having difculty recalling a professional journalist who does not violate these axioms.

Hell, the "either/or reasoning" fallacy is the basis for the whole of American journalism.

10 posted on 04/25/2003 2:37:32 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: annyokie
I'll bet you had your MMR shots as a kid, too!
11 posted on 04/25/2003 2:38:24 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
True enough. I have found this to be universal, as well.
12 posted on 04/25/2003 2:38:55 PM PDT by annyokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Yes, I did. And those sealants that I had put on my teeth! What was I thinking?!
13 posted on 04/25/2003 2:40:10 PM PDT by annyokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Hell, the "either/or reasoning" fallacy is the basis for the whole of American journalism.

Correcto mundo!

"Conflict" is the die through which all the paste of journalism is squeezed.

Is it fallacious to assume that major media are founded in fallacy?

14 posted on 04/25/2003 2:54:27 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
FOOMCOMA

Yes, I have coined a new internet term just for your comment. It means Fell Out Of My Chair On My A$#

15 posted on 04/25/2003 2:56:57 PM PDT by BSunday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
LOL!
16 posted on 04/25/2003 3:00:12 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
I don't think anyone doesn't violate these axioms. But it's something to shoot for I suppose.
17 posted on 04/25/2003 3:02:04 PM PDT by Buckeye Bomber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
Are you saying liberals violate these rules, or are you saying that only liberals follow these rules. I'll assume the first, but you need to be more clear there. :-)

I don't think it's fair to say only liberals violate these little axioms. They do it more, that's for sure (especially emotional appeals), but I don't think any of us are immune to these fallacies.
18 posted on 04/25/2003 3:03:45 PM PDT by Buckeye Bomber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"Try this logical fallacy on for size . . .

3% of adult males in the U.S. are gay.
I and my 35 adult male relatives are all straight.
Therefore, you must be gay. "

How about this for liberals I emote therefore I am.

regards

the dozer
19 posted on 04/25/2003 3:20:17 PM PDT by dozer7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Bomber
None of the fallacies listed here is a logical fallacy. They are all informal fallacies.

There are only two kinds of logical or formal fallacies; affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. The first is in the form of, If X, then Y. Y, therefore X. Eg. If it rained last night, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore it rained last night.

The second is in the form If X, then Y. Not X. Therefore, not Y. Eg. If it rained last night, then the streets are wet. It did not rain last night. Therefore, the streets are not wet.

My apologies for nitpicking. Here is a site that has more info on fallacies. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html As far as I know, informal fallacies are generally categorized as either fallacies of relevance or fallacies of ambiguity. There are a larger number of them than are being presented on either site, though I don't know of any comprehensive list.

20 posted on 04/26/2003 3:55:59 PM PDT by moni kerr (Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson