Michael Arthur G.

Celzo

Introduction to Philosophy with Logic C2B

1. What are fallacies?

In a simple sense it is a bad argument. It tends to exploit common psychological

aspects of our mind. It is also an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which
undermines an argument’s logical validity or more generally an argument’s logical
soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. Many people think
that they are good arguments. Meaning to say, in a front of speaking it is correct but if
you think deeply those arguments are wrong. Sometimes fallacies also include evidence
that will support their claim justifying it that it is right. The evidences or facts are true
because it is actually true but the conclusions derive is wrong even if facts or evidences
support the conclusion. Many people believe it, because it is accompanied by facts,
which in turn distorting the people’s mind about it. Some fallacies include facts in the
bible, history, and many more that “sinaunang tao” believe differently than our
generation day. It also follows certain patterns, so there are categories of common
fallacies. Their derivation of fallacies conclusion has a pattern. You can see fallacies
around you all the time once you recognize these patterns. There are many fallacies
found in the world that people believe in because they never question its derivation.
They only belive because they assume that it is correct which this world has a problem
with.

2. Kinds of Fallacies:

1. A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form. All
formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

 Anecdotal fallacy  Base rate fallacy

 Appeal to probability  Conjunction fallacy
 Argument from fallacy  Masked-man fallacy

2. A propositional fallacy is an error in logic 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 inferences whose correctness
is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are
not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.

 Affirming a disjunct  Denying the antecedent

 Affirming the consequent

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

 Existential fallacy

4. Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

 Affirmative conclusion from a  Illicit minor

negative premise (illicit negative)  Negative conclusion from
 Fallacy of exclusive premises affirmative premises (illicit
 Fallacy of four terms (quaternio affirmative)
terminorum)  Fallacy of the undistributed
 Illicit major middle

5. Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural
(formal) flaws and usually require examination of the argument's content.

 Appeal to the stone (argumentum fallacy of the mean, argumentum

ad lapidem) ad temperantiam)
 Argument from ignorance (appeal  Argumentum ad hominem
to ignorance, argumentum ad  Ergo decedo
ignorantiam)  Argumentum verbosium
 Argument from (personal)  Begging the question (petitio
incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal principii)
to common sense)  Shifting the burden of proof
 Argument from repetition  Circular reasoning (circulus in
(argumentum ad nauseam, demonstrando)
argumentum ad infinitum)  Circular cause and consequence
 Argument from silence  Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the
(argumentum ex silentio) beard, line-drawing fallacy,
 Argument to moderation (false sorites fallacy, fallacy of the
compromise, middle ground, heap, bald man fallacy)
 Correlative-based fallacies
 Correlation proves causation
(post hoc ergo propter hoc)
 Suppressed correlative
 Double counting
 Equivocation
 Ambiguous middle term
 Definitional retreat
 Ecological fallacy
 Etymological fallacy
 Fallacy of accent
 Fallacy of composition
 Fallacy of division
 False attribution
 Fallacy of quoting out of context
(contextomy)
 False authority (single authority)
 False dilemma (false dichotomy,
fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-
white fallacy)
 False equivalence
 Fallacy of many questions
(complex question, fallacy of
presupposition, loaded question,
plurium interrogationum)
 Fallacy of the single cause
(causal oversimplification)
 Furtive fallacy
 Gambler's fallacy
 Historian's fallacy
 Historical fallacy
 Homunculus fallacy
 Inflation of conflict
 If-by-whiskey
 Incomplete comparison
 Inconsistent comparison
 Intentionality fallacy
 Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant
conclusion, missing the point)
 Kettle logic
 Ludic fallacy
 McNamara fallacy (quantitative
fallacy)
 Moral high ground fallacy
 Moralistic fallacy
 Moving the goalposts (raising the
bar)
 Naturalistic fallacy
 Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution
fallacy)
 Onus probandi
 Petitio principii
 Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin
for "after this, therefore because
of this" (faulty cause/effect,
coincidental correlation,
correlation without causation)
 Proof by assertion
 Proof by verbosity (argumentum
verbosium, proof by intimidation)
 Prosecutor's fallacy
 Proving too much
 Psychologist's fallacy
 Red herring
 Referential fallacy
 Regression fallacy
 Reification (concretism,
hypostatization, or the fallacy of
misplaced concreteness)
 Retrospective determinism
 Shotgun argumentation
 Special pleading
 Wrong direction
6. Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of
relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions
yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.

 Accident lonely fact, leaping to a

 No true Scotsman conclusion, hasty induction,
 Cherry picking (suppressed secundum quid, converse
evidence, incomplete evidence) accident)
 Survivorship bias  Inductive fallacy
 False analogy  Misleading vividness
 Hasty generalization (fallacy of  Overwhelming exception
insufficient statistics, fallacy of  Thought-terminating cliché
insufficient sample, fallacy of the

7. 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. In the general case any logical inference based on fake
arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the
subject of the discussion. Red herring – argument given in response to another
argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument.

 Ad hominem  Appeal to novelty (argumentum

 Poisoning the well novitatis, argumentum ad
 Abusive fallacy antiquitatis)
 Appeal to authority (argumentum  Appeal to poverty (argumentum
ab auctoritate) ad Lazarum)
 Appeal to accomplishment  Appeal to tradition (argumentum
 Appeal to consequences ad antiquitatem)
(argumentum ad consequentiam)  Appeal to wealth (argumentum
 Appeal to emotion ad crumenam)
 Appeal to fear  Argumentum ad baculum (appeal
 Appeal to flattery to the stick, appeal to force,
 Appeal to pity (argumentum ad appeal to threat)
misericordiam)  Argumentum ad populum (appeal
 Appeal to ridicule to widespread belief, bandwagon
 Appeal to spite argument, appeal to the majority,
 Wishful thinking appeal to the people)
 Appeal to motive  Association fallacy (guilt by
association)
 Appeal to nature
 Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy)
  Chronological snobbery  Straw man fallacy
 Fallacy of relative privation ("not  Texas sharpshooter fallacy
as bad as")  Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to
 Genetic fallacy hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're
 Judgmental language glue)
 Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought  Two wrongs make a right
fallacy, naturalistic fallacy)  Vacuous truth
 Pooh-pooh

8. Conditional or questionable fallacies.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies