Fallacies Flashcards
Example #1:
If it barks, it is a dog.
It doesn’t bark.
Therefore, it’s not a dog.
Example #2:
If I have cable, then I have seen a naked lady.
I don’t have cable.
Therefore, I have never seen a naked lady.
Fallacy of denying the antecedent
fallacy that can occur in reasoning from hypothetical propositions.
Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax.
Faulty causal generalization
this woman is vomitting, so she is pregnant.
That is why people in court need to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The Half-Truth
everything that is said is true (verifiable as a fact), but because not enough is said, the total picture is distorted. Things left unsaid distort the total picture. Leaving out details /relevant facts of the context of the situation.
Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse, why on earth would you have done that?
Ken: But what is morality exactly?
Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures.
Ken: But who creates this code?…
Red Harring
Diversion of attention with intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
Explanation: Ken has successfully derailed this conversation off of his sexual digressions to the deep, existential, discussion on morality.
Example #1:
Not believing in the literal resurrection of Jesus because the Bible has errors and contradictions, is like denying that the Titanic sank because eye-witnesses did not agree if the ship broke in half before or after it sank.
The Titanic sank in recent history We know for a fact that the testimonies we have are of eye-witnesses We have physical evidence of the sunken Titanic
Example #2:
Believing in the literal resurrection of Jesus is like believing in the literal existence of zombies.
False Analogy
Explanation: This is an actual analogy used by, I am sorry to say, one of my favorite Christian debaters (one who usually seems to value reason and logic). There are several problems with this analogy, including:
Because I said so, thats why.
Mere assertion
Statement: on either side of the argument, does not constitute proof. the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction.
While this may seem stupid, it’s actually an easy trap to fall into and is quite common. X is true, because X is true. an assertion itself isn’t really a proof of anything, or even a real argument - assertion only demonstrates that the person making the statement believes in it.
A truly fallacious argument by assertion is when someone continues to assert without advancing their argument, even after it has been pointed out.
Example #1:
All hotdogs are fast food.
No hamburgers are hotdogs.
Therefore, no hamburgers are fast food.
Example #2:
All Jim Carrey movies are hilarious.
No horror movies are Jim Carrey movies.
Therefore, no horror movies are hilarious.
Illicit Process
Explanation: In our example, the major term is “fast food”, because it is the term that appears in the major premise (first premise) as the predicate and in the conclusion. As such, in this position, it is “undistributed”.
How could you not believe in virgin births? Roughly two billion people believe in them, don’t you think you should reconsider your position?
Ad populum
Explanation: Anyone who believes in virgin births does not have empirical evidence for his or her belief. This is a claim accepted on faith, which is an individual and subjective form of accepting information, that should not have any effect on your beliefs. Don’t forget that there was a time that the common beliefs included a flat earth, earth-centered universe, and demon possession as the cause of most illness.
Example #1:
All lions are animals.
All cats are animals.
Therefore, all lions are cats.
Example #2:
All ghosts are imaginary.
All unicorns are imaginary.
Therefore, all ghosts are unicorns.
Fallacy of the undistributed middle
Explanation: We are tricked because the conclusion makes sense, so out of laziness we accept the argument, but the argument is invalid, and by plugging in new terms, like in the next example, we can see why.
failure to supply a link in the chain of arguments, a failure to establish that the major term and the minor term coincide. Also see Syllogism.
1 My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age sixty-nine. Therefore, smoking really can’t be that bad for you.
False generalization
Explanation: It is extremely unreasonable (and dangerous) to draw a universal conclusion about the health risks of smoking by the case study of one man.
‘jump to a conclusion’ from inadequate evidence. Particulars concern evidence gathered by observation or study, but our generalizations sometimes come from authority. Inadequate because:
Particulars are irrelevant, may be unrepresentative, may not be numerous enough to warrant the conclusion.
Authority quoted is biased or prejudiced, incompetent, outmoded, inaccurately quoted, misinterpreted, or is quoted out of context
No Jews are Muslims.
No Muslims are Christians.
Therefore Jews are Christians.
No dogs are reptiles.
No reptiles are magenta.
Dogs are magenta.
No dogs are reptiles.
No reptiles shoot lasers out of their eyes.
Dogs shoot lasers out of their eyes.
Conclusion from two negative premises
Negative + Negative = Positive
Because two negative premises establish no relationship among all three terms in a syllogistic chain of reasoning, no conclusion, either affirmative or negative can be drawn. Negative premises exclude relationships. Unless one of the premises is affirmative so that it can include a relationship, we cannot validly arrive at any conclusion.
