Informal Fallacies Flashcards
What does ‘Informal Fallacy’ mean?
Arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and usually require examination of the argument’s content.
Argument from ignorance
appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam
Assuming that a claim is true because it has not yet been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
This represents a type of false dichotomy that it excludes a third option. That there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.
What argument from ignorance was put forward by Bertrand Russel as a hypothetical example?
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist.
Philosopher Bertrand Russell’s teapot describes a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars.
What is ‘Pragmatism’?
A position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument’s proponent.
Russell’s teapot would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism.
What does Occam’s Razor state?
Among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but — in the absence of certainty — the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
“I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.”
What type of fallacy is this statement?
An argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense).
Argument from repetition
argumentum ad nauseam
Signifies that it the issue has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
Argument from silence
argumentum e silentio
Where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
What type of fallacy assumes that the compromise between two positions is always correct?
An argument to moderation
(false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam).
Argumentum ad hominem
The evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.
Begging the question
petitio principii
Providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.
A type of circular reasoning.
(Shifting the) Burden of proof
see – onus probandi
Example: ‘I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.’
Circular reasoning
circulus in demonstrando
When the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
“To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments”.
Circular cause and consequence
Where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
Correlation proves causation
cum hoc ergo propter hoc
It is a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
What is Equivocation?
The misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).
Fallacy of composition
Assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
Fallacy of division
Assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.
False dilemma
false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy
Two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
“If you are not with us, you are against us”
Fallacy of many questions
complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum
Someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.
This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda.
Fallacy of the single cause
causal oversimplification
It is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution
An advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
Fallacy of quoting out of context
contextomy
Refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning.
Gambler’s fallacy
The incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.
If a coin flip 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.
Hedging
Using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later.
Historian’s fallacy
Occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.
Presentism
A mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.
Inflation of conflict
The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.
If-by-whiskey
Used in political discourse in which the speaker’s position is contingent on the listener’s opinion.
An if-by-whiskey argument implemented through doublespeak appears to affirm both sides of an issue, and agrees with whichever side the listener supports, in effect taking a position without taking a position.
The statement typically uses words with strongly positive or negative connotations (e.g., terrorist as negative and freedom fighter as positive).
Incomplete comparison
Insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
Inconsistent comparison
Different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
Irrelevant conclusion
missing the point, Ignoratio elenchi
An argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
An example might be a situation where A and B are debating whether the law permits A to do something. If A attempts to support his position with an argument that the law ‘ought’ to allow him to do the thing in question, then he is guilty of making an irrelevant conclusion.
Ludic fallacy
The belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.
Mind projection fallacy
Where a person considers the way they sees the world as the way the world really is.
Moral high ground fallacy
A person assumes a “holier-than-thou” attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.
The moralistic fallacy
Assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist.
Its typical form is “if X were true, then it would happen that Z!”, where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.
What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring. The moralistic fallacy is used to be presented as the reverse of the naturalistic fallacy.
Nirvana fallacy
perfect solution fallacy
When solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Proof by verbosity
argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation
Submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.
Prosecutor’s fallacy
A low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
Proving too much
Occurs when an argument reaches the desired conclusion in such a way as to make that conclusion only a special case or corollary consequences of a larger, obviously absurd conclusion.
It is a fallacy because, if the reasoning were valid, it would hold for the absurd conclusion.
Psychologist’s fallacy
An observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
Referential fallacy
Assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to.
As opposed to words possibly referring no real object (imaginary) or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.
Regression fallacy
Ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations.
Reification (hypostatization)
A fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity.
In other words, it is the error of treating as a “real thing” something that is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Retrospective determinism
The argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
Shotgun argumentation
The arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can’t possibly respond to all of them.
Special pleading
Where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
Wrong direction
Cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.
