Forty-Two Fallacies

Fallacies and Arguments

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly an
argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is
either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is
also a sentence that is either true or false).
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an
argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An
inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of
support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required
degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known
as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the
arguments are valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid
or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or
“cogent”) inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply
being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given
for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument
that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive
fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply “arguments” which appear to be inductive
arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the
premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

Example of a Deductive Argument

Premise 1: If Bill is a cat, then Bill is a mammal.
Premise 2: Bill is a cat.
Conclusion: Bill is a mammal.

Example of an Inductive Argument

Premise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats.
Premise 2: Bill is an American cat.
Conclusion: Bill is domestic house cat.

Example of a Factual Error

Columbus is the capital of the United States.

Example of a Deductive Fallacy

Premise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine.
Premise 2: Portland is in Maine.
Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine. (Portland is in Maine, but Augusta is the capital. Portland is
the largest city in Maine, though.)
Example of an Inductive Fallacy
Premise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel.
Conclusion: All Ohio squirrels are white. (While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones
are very rare).

Fallacies
Ad Hominem
Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive, Personal Attack
Description:
Translated from Latin to English, “ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
An ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the
basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her
circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting
the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question
is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

The reason why an ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or
actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or
the quality of the argument being made).

Example#1:
Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further,
you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”

Example#2:
John: “Sally was saying that people shouldn’t hunt animals or kill them for food or clothing. She also…”
Wanda: “Well, Sally is a sissy crybaby who loves animals way too much.”
John: “So?”
Wanda: “That means she is wrong about that animal stuff. Also, if we weren’t supposed to eat ‘em, they
wouldn’t be made of meat.”

Appeal to Emotion
Description:
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
1) Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2) Therefore, X is true.
 This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples’ emotions in order to get them to
accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of “reasoning” involves the substitution of various
means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated
with X influence the person to accept X as true because they “feel good about X,” then he has fallen prey
to the fallacy.
This sort of “reasoning” is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of
modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings
will get them to vote or act a certain way. In the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking
emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such speeches and commercials
are notoriously free of real evidence.
This sort of “reasoning” is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics
to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to
inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the
claim that 1+1 =3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.
It should be noted that in many cases it is not particularly obvious that the person committing the
fallacy is attempting to support a claim. In many cases, the user of the fallacy will appear to be attempting
to move people to take an action, such as buying a product or fighting in a war. However, it is possible to
determine what sort of claim the person is actually attempting to support. In such cases one needs to ask
“what sort of claim is this person attempting to get people to accept and act on?” Determining this claim
(or claims) might take some work. However, in many cases it will be quite evident. For example, if a
political leader is attempting to convince her followers to participate in certain acts of violence by the use
of a hate speech, then her claim would be “you should participate in these acts of violence.” In this case,
the “evidence” would be the hatred evoked in the followers. This hatred would serve to make them favorable
inclined towards the claim that they should engage in the acts of violence. As another example, a beer
commercial might show happy, scantily clad men and women prancing about a beach, guzzling beer. In
this case the claim would be “you should buy this beer.” The “evidence” would be the excitement evoked
by seeing the beautiful people guzzling the beer.
This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As many people have argued,
peoples’ emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult
and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. It is the power of this fallacy that
explains its great popularity and wide usage. However, it is still a fallacy. In all fairness it must be noted
that the use of tactics to inspire emotions is an important skill. Without an appeal to peoples’ emotions, it
is often difficult to get them to take action or to perform at their best. For example, no good coach presents
her team with syllogisms before the big game. Instead she inspires them with emotional terms and attempts
to “fire” them up. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it is not any acceptable form of
argumentation. As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what inspires emotions and what
justifies a claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this fallacy. As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult
to distinguish an Appeal to Emotion from some other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be
committed. For example, many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some
cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person
to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an
Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the
followers feel very favorable about rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at
making the followers reject the person’s claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her
character.
This fallacy is related to the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Despite the differences between these
two fallacies, they are both united by the fact that they involve appeals to emotions. In both cases the
fallacies aim at getting people to accept claims based on how they or others feel about the claims and not
based on evidence for the claims.

Another way to look at these two fallacies is as follows

Appeal to Popularity
1) Most people approve of X.
2) So, I should approve of X, too.
3) Since I approve of X, X must be true.

Appeal to Emotion
1) I approve of X.
2) Therefore, X is true.

On this view, in an Appeal to Popularity the claim is accepted because most people approve of the claim.
In the case of an Appeal to Emotion the claim is accepted because the individual approves of the claim
because of the emotion of approval he feels in regards to the claim.

Example #1:
The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your
power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power.
TangerinePower.

Example #2: The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight.
Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true
happiness if you try our diet!

Example #3: Bill goes to hear a politician speak. The politician tells the crowd about the evils of the
government and the need to throw out the people who are currently in office. After hearing the speech, Bill
is full of hatred for the current politicians. Because of this, he feels good about getting rid of the old
politicians and accepts that it is the right thing to do because of how he feels.

Appeal to Fear
Also Known as: Scare Tactics, Appeal to Force, Ad Baculum
Description:
The Appeal to Fear is a fallacy with the following pattern:
1) Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear).
2) Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be, related to Y in some manner).
 This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence
for a claim.
It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and a prudential
reason to believe(PRB) (motivation). A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim.
A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit
or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the
truth or falsity of the claim. For example, it might be prudent to not fail the son of your department
chairperson because you fear he will make life tough for you. However, this does not provide evidence for
the claim that the son deserves to pass the class.

Example #1:
You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this class. I’d like to stop by during your office
hours later to discuss my grade. I’ll be in your building anyways, visting my father. He’s your dean, by the
way. I’ll see you later.

Example #2:
I don’t think a Red Ryder BB rifle would make a good present for you. They are very dangerous and you’ll
put your eye out. Now, don’t you agree that you should think of another gift idea?

Example #3:
You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face
the horrors of hell.

Example #4:
You shouldn’t say such things against multiculturalism! If the chair heard what you were saying, you would
never receive tenure. So, you had just better learn to accept that it is simply wrong to speak out against it.

Appeal to Flattery
Also Known as: Apple Polishing, various “colorful” expressions
Description:
An Appeal to Flattery is a fallacy of the following form:
1) Person A is flattered by person B.
2) Person B makes claim X.
3) Therefore X is true.

The basic idea behind this fallacy is that flattery is presented in the place of evidence for accepting
a claim. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because flattery is not, in fact, evidence for a claim. This is
especially clear in a case like this: “My Bill, that is a really nice tie. By the way, it is quite clear that one
plus one is equal to forty three.

Example #1:
Might I say that this is the best philosophy class I’ve ever taken. By the way, about those two points I need
to get an A.
Example #2:
“That was a wonderful joke about AIDS boss, and I agree with you that the damn liberals are wrecking the
country. Now about my raise…”

Example #3: That was a singularly brilliant idea. I have never seen such a clear and eloquent defense of
Plato’s position. If you do not mind, I’ll base my paper on it. Provided that you allow me a little extra time
past the deadline to work on it.

Appeal to Authority
Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable
Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
Description:
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1) Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.

2) Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3) Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be
fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the
reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any
justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim
does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being
adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously
believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to
accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept
some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.
Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a
particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following
standards are widely accepted:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will,
obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise
will be supported by the person’s reliability in the area.
Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult.
In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person’s formal education, academic
performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth
can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards will apply. For
example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the
ability to tie the shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted that being an expert does
not always require having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated
subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person
with a degree is an expert.
Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some
people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special
gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person’s expertise while others
often see these self proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate
over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to
be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many
cases do not involve such debate.

2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is
not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise
and is not reliable.
It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is
simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts
in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is
important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.
It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise
in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on
morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of
advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely
common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that they are not qualified to assess.
For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or
shaving or underwear or diets or politics.

3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will
be fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any
claim being made and “supported” by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and “supported”
by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute
has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can
invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.
There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a
good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many
plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could
sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the
exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology
and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert
that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who
will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one
cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an
argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion.
 It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is
acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to keep in
mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In
such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.

4. The person in question is not significantly biased.

If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less
reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert
will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.
Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and prejudices. If there is evidence that a person is
biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority
based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is
biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be
making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason
to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert’s bias or prejudice.
It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will
be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some
degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree
of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would
probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would
be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective.

5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.

Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of
knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable.
What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there
are cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called
“chromabullet therapy” and asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it would
not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his “expertise.” After all, his expertise is in an area
which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have
mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.
As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be difficult. In European history,
various scientists had to struggle with the Church and established traditions to establish the validity of their
disciplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle in getting the legitimacy of their area
accepted.
A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that they are certified
“master psychics” and that they are actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of
being certified “master psychics” are simply absurd since there is no real content to such an area of
expertise. If these people are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these “master psychics” as true
are victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.

6. The authority in question must be identified.

A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed
Authority.
 This fallacy is Also Known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority. This fallacy is committed
when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person
does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if
the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no
reason to accept the claim.
This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things
like “I have a book that says…” , or “they say…”, or “the experts say…”, or “scientists believe that…”, or
“I read in the paper..” or “I saw on TV…” or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often
hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe
the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as
an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.

Appeal to Pity
Also Known as: Ad Misericordiam
Description:
An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a claim intended to create pity for
evidence in an argument. The form of the “argument” is as follows:
1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity.
2. Therefore claim C is true.

This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because pity does not serve as evidence for a claim. This is
extremely clear in the following case: “You must accept that 1+1=46, after all I’m dying…” While you
may pity me because I am dying, it would hardly make my claim true.
This fallacy differs from the Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief (ACB). In the ACB fallacy, a
person is using the effects of a belief as a substitute for evidence. In the Appeal to Pity, it is the feelings of
pity or sympathy that are substituted for evidence.
It must be noted that there are cases in which claims that actually serve as evidence also evoke a
feeling of pity. In such cases, the feeling of pity is still not evidence. The following is an example of a case
in which a claim evokes pity and also serves as legitimate evidence:

Professor: “You missed the midterm, Bill.”

Bill: “I know. I think you should let me take the makeup.”
Professor: “Why?”
Bill: “I was hit by a truck on the way to the midterm. Since I had to go to the emergency room with a broken
leg, I think I am entitled to a makeup.”
Professor: “I’m sorry about the leg, Bill. Of course you can make it up.”

The above example does not involve a fallacy. While the professor does feel sorry for Bill, she is justified
in accepting Bill’s claim that he deserves a makeup. After all getting run over by a truck would be a
legitimate excuse for missing a test.

Example #1:
Jill: “He’d be a terrible coach for the team.”
Bill: “He had his heart set on the job, and it would break if he didn’t get it.”
Jill: “I guess he’ll do an adequate job.”

Example #2: “I’m positive that my work will meet your requirements. I really need the job since my
grandmother is sick”

Example #3:
“I should receive an ‘A’ in this class. After all, if I don’t get an ‘A’ I won’t get the fellowship that I want.”

Appeal to Tradition
Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age
Description:
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct
simply because it is older, traditional, or “always has been done.” This sort of “reasoning” has the following
form:
1. X is old or traditional
2. Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it
correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory
that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microorganism cause diseases.
Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.
This sort of “reasoning” is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with
what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem
from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with
things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older
and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.
It should not be assumed that new things must be better than old things (see the fallacy Appeal to
Novelty) any more than it should be assumed that old things are better than new things. The age of thing
does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context). In the case of tradition,
assuming that something is correct just because it is considered a tradition is poor reasoning. For example,
if the belief that 1+1 = 56 were a tradition of a group of people it would hardly follow that it is true.
Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that aged
wine would be better than brand new wine, he would not be committing an Appeal to Tradition. This is
because, in such cases the age of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only
when the age is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim.
One final issue that must be considered is the “test of time.” In some cases people might be
assuming that because something has lasted as a tradition or has been around a long time that it is true
because it has “passed the test of time.” If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply
because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. After all, as history has
shown people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries.
However, if a person argues that the claim or thing in question has successfully stood up to
challenges and tests for a long period of time then they would not be committing a fallacy. In such cases
the claim would be backed by evidence. As an example, the theory that matter is made of subatomic
particles has survived numerous tests and challenges over the years so there is a weight of evidence in its
favor. The claim is reasonable to accept because of the weight of this evidence and not because the claim
is old. Thus, a claim’s surviving legitimate challenges and passing valid tests for a long period of time can
justify the acceptance of a claim. But mere age or persistence does not warrant accepting a claim.

Example #1:
Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must
exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?

Example #2:
Gunthar is the father of Connan. They live on a small island and in their culture women are treated as
property to be exchanged at will by men.

Connan: “You know father, when I was going to school in the United States I saw that American women
are not treated as property. In fact, I read a book by this person named Mill in which he argued for women’s
rights.”
Gunthar: “So, what is your point son?”
Connan: “Well, I think that it might be wrong to trade my sisters for cattle. They are human beings and
should have a right to be masters of their own fate.”
Gunthar: “What a strange and new‐fangled notion you picked up in America. That country must be even
more barbaric then I imagined. Now think about this son. We have been trading women for cattle for as
long as our people have lived on this island. It is a tradition that goes back into the mists of time. “ Connan:
“But I still think there is something wrong with it.”
Gunthar: “Nonsense my boy. A tradition this old must be endorsed by the gods and must be right. “

Example #3:
Of course this mode of government is the best. We have had this government for over 200 years and no one
has talked about changing it in all that time. So, it has got to be good.

Example #4:
A reporter is interviewing the head of a family that has been involved with a feud with another family.

Reporter: “Mr. Hatfield, why are you still fighting it out with the McCoys?”
Hatfield: “Well you see young man, my father feuded with the McCoys and his father feuded with them
and so did my great grandfather.”
Reporter: “But why? What started all this?”
Hatfield: “I don’t rightly know. I’m sure it was the McCoys who started it all, though.”
Reporter: “If you don’t know why you’re fighting, why don’t you just stop?”
Hatfield: “Stop? What are you crazy? This feud has been going on for generations so I’m sure there is a
darn good reason why it started. So I aim to keep it going. It has got to be the right thing to do. Hand me
my shooting iron boy, I see one of those McCoy skunks sneaking in the cornfield.”

Burden of Proof
Also Known As: Appeal to Ignorance (“Ad Ignorantiam’)
Description:
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another
version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the
burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of
reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide
evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is
assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any,
the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some
cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be
innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in
debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden
of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense
data).

Example #1:
Bill: “I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system.”
Jill: “I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury.” Bill: How can anyone be against
highway improvements?”

Example #2:
Bill: “I think that some people have psychic powers.”
Jill: “What is your proof?” Bill: “No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.”

Example #3: “You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.”

Confusing Cause and Effect

Also Known as: Questionable Cause, Reversing Causation
Description:
Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:
1) A and B regularly occur together.
2) Therefore A is the cause of B.

This fallacy requires that there not be, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A
and B.
This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just
because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that
A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common
cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion
is being drawn without adequate justification.
 In some cases it will be evident that the fallacy is being committed. For example, a person
might claim that an illness was caused by a person getting a fever. In this case, it would be quite
clear that the fever was caused by illness and not the other way around. In other cases, the fallacy
is not always evident. One factor that makes causal reasoning quite difficult is that it is not always
evident what is the cause and what is the effect. For example, a problem child might be the cause
of the parents being short tempered or the short temper of the parents might be the cause of the
child being problematic. The difficulty is increased by the fact that some situations might involve
feedback. For example, the parents’ temper might cause the child to become problematic and the
child’s behavior could worsen the parents’ temper. In such cases it could be rather difficult to sort
out what caused what in the first place.
In order to determine that the fallacy has been committed, it must be shown that the causal
conclusion has not been adequately supported and that the person committing the fallacy has
confused the actual cause with the effect. Showing that the fallacy has been committed will
typically involve determining the actual cause and the actual effect. In some cases, as noted above,
this can be quite easy. In other cases it will be difficult. In some cases, it might be almost
impossible. Another thing that makes causal reasoning difficult is that people often have very
different conceptions of cause and, in some cases, the issues are clouded by emotions and
ideologies. For example, people often claim violence on TV and in movies must be censored
because it causes people to like violence. Other people claim that there is violence on TV and in
movies because people like violence. In this case, it is not obvious what the cause really is and the
issue is clouded by the fact that emotions often run high on this issue.
While causal reasoning can be difficult, many errors can be avoided with due care and
careful testing procedures. This is due to the fact that the fallacy arises because the conclusion is
drawn without due care. One way to avoid the fallacy is to pay careful attention to the temporal
sequence of events. Since (outside of Star Trek), effects do not generally precede their causes, if A
occurs after B, then A cannot be the cause of B. However, these methods go beyond the scope of
this program.
All causal fallacies involve an error in causal reasoning. However, this fallacy differs from
the other causal fallacies in terms of the error in reasoning being made. In the case of a Post Hoc
fallacy, the error is that a person is accepting that A is the cause of B simply because A occurs
before B. In the case of the Fallacy of Ignoring a Common Cause A is taken to be the cause of B
when there is, in fact, a third factor that is the cause of both A and B. For more information, see the
relevant entries in this program.

Example #1:
Bill and Joe are having a debate about music and moral decay:
Bill: ‘”It seems clear to me that this new music is causing the youth to become corrupt.”
Joe: ‘What do you mean?”
Bill: “This rap stuff is always telling the kids to kill cops, do drugs, and abuse women. That is all bad and
the kids today shouldn’t be doing that sort of stuff. We ought to ban that music!”
Joe: “So, you think that getting rid of the rap music would solve the drug, violence and sexism problems in
the US?”
Bill: “Well, it wouldn’t get rid of it all, but it would take care of a lot of it.”
Joe: “Don’t you think that most of the rap singers sing about that sort of stuff because that is what is really
going on these days? I mean, people often sing about the conditions of their time, just like the people did
in the sixties. But then I suppose that you think that people were against the war and into drugs just because
they listened to Dylan and Baez.”
Bill: “Well…”
Joe: “Well, it seems to me that the main cause of the content of the rap music is the pre‐existing social
conditions. If there weren’t all these problems, the rap singers probably wouldn’t be singing about them. I
also think that if the social conditions were great, kids could listen to the music all day and not be affected.”
Joe: ‘Well, I still think the rap music causes the problems. You can’t argue against the fact that social ills
really picked up at the same time rap music got started.”

Example #2:
It is claimed by some people that severe illness is caused by depression and anger. After all, people who
are severely ill are very often depressed and angry. Thus, it follows that the cause of severe illness actually
is the depression and anger. So, a good and cheerful attitude is key to staying healthy.

Example #3:
Bill sets out several plates with bread on them. After a couple days, he notices that the bread has mold
growing all over it. Bill concludes that the mold was produced by the bread going bad. When Bill tells his
mother about his experiment, she tells him that the mold was the cause of the bread going bad and that he
better clean up the mess if he wants to get his allowance this week.

False Dilemma
Also Known as: Black & White Thinking
Description:
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of “reasoning”:

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.

This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot
be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the
following example:
1. Either 1+1 =4 or 1+1=12 .
2. It is not the case that 1+1 = 4.
3. Therefore 1+1 =12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning
is not fallacious. For example:
1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive.

Example #1:
Senator Jill: “We’ll have to cut education funding this year.”
Senator Bill” “Why?”
Senator Jill: “Well, either we cut the social programs of we live with a huge deficit and we can’t live with
the deficit.”

Example #2:
Bill: “Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools.”
Jill: “Hey, I never said that!”
Bill: “You’re not an atheist are you Jill?

Example #3:
“Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or
you decide you are going to do without music for a while.”

Hasty Generalization
Also Known as: Fallacy of Insufficient Statistics, Fallacy of Insufficient Sample, Leaping to A Conclusion,
Hasty Induction
Description:
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample
that is not large enough. It has the following form:
1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known
variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:
1. X% of all observed A’s are B’s.
2. Therefore X% of all A’s are B’s.

The fallacy is committed when not enough A’s are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough
A’s are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.
Small samples will tend to be unrepresentative. As a blatant case, asking one person what she thinks
about gun control would clearly not provide an adequate sized sample for determining what Canadians in
general think about the issue. The general idea is that small samples are less likely to contain numbers
proportional to the whole population. For example, if a bucket contains blue, red, green and orange marbles,
then a sample of three marbles cannot possible be representative of the whole population of marbles. As
the sample size of marbles increases the more likely it becomes that marbles of each color will be selected
in proportion to their numbers in the whole population. The same holds true for things others than marbles,
such as people and their political views.
Since Hasty Generalization is committed when the sample (the observed instances) is too small, it
is important to have samples that are large enough when making a generalization. The most reliable way to
do this is to take as large a sample as is practical. There are no fixed numbers as to what counts as being
large enough. If the population in question is not very diverse (a population of cloned mice, for example)
then a very small sample would suffice. If the population is very diverse (people, for example) then a fairly
large sample would be needed. The size of the sample also depends on the size of the population. Obviously,
a very small population will not support a huge sample. Finally, the required size will depend on the purpose
of the sample. If Bill wants to know what Joe and Jane think about gun control, then a sample consisting of
Bill and Jane would (obviously) be large enough. If Bill wants to know what most Australians think about
gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would be far too small.
People often commit Hasty Generalizations because of bias or prejudice. For example, someone
who is a sexist might conclude that all women are unfit to fly jet fighters because one woman crashed one.
People also commonly commit Hasty Generalizations because of laziness or sloppiness. It is very easy to
simply leap to a conclusion and much harder to gather an adequate sample and draw a justified conclusion.
Thus, avoiding this fallacy requires minimizing the influence of bias and taking care to select a sample that
is large enough.
One final point: a Hasty Generalization, like any fallacy, might have a true conclusion. However,
as long as the reasoning is fallacious there is no reason to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning.

Example #1:

Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has
never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and
sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family
that American squirrels are white.

Example #2:
Sam is riding her bike in her home town in Maine, minding her own business. A station wagon
comes up behind her and the driver starts beeping his horn and then tries to force her off the road. As he
goes by, the driver yells “get on the sidewalk where you belong!” Sam sees that the car has Ohio plates and
concludes that all Ohio drivers are jerks.

Example #3:
Bill: “You know, those feminists all hate men.”
Joe: “Really?”
Bill: “Yeah. I was in my philosophy class the other day and that Rachel chick gave a presentation.”
Joe: “Which Rachel?”
Bill: “You know her. She’s the one that runs that feminist group over at the Women’s Center. She said that
men are all sexist pigs. I asked her why she believed this and she said that her last few boyfriends were real
sexist pigs.”
Joe: “That doesn’t sound like a good reason to believe that all of us are pigs.”
Bill: “That was what I said.”
Joe: “What did she say?”
Bill: “She said that she had seen enough of men to know we are all pigs. She obviously hates all men.”
Joe: “So you think all feminists are like her?” Bill: “Sure. They all hate men.”

Guilt by Association
Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy
Description:
Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out
that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. It is pointed out that person A accepts claim P.

2. Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of “reasoning” is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of
poor “reasoning”: “You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy
all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn’t believe it.”
The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they
dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced
into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or
feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.
Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not
justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth
revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims
simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).

Example #1:
Will and Kiteena are arguing over socialism. Kiteena is a pacifist and hates violence and violent people.

Kiteena: “I think that the United States should continue to adopt socialist programs. For example, I think
that the government should take control of vital industries.”
Will: “So, you are for state ownership of industry.”
Kiteena: “Certainly. It is a great idea and will help make the world a less violent place.”
Will: “Well, you know Stalin also endorsed state ownership of industry. At last count he wiped out millions
of his own people. Pol Pot of Cambodia was also for state ownership of industry. He also killed millions of
his own people. The leadership of China is for state owned industry. They killed their own people in that
square. So, are you still for state ownership of industry?”
Kiteena: “Oh, no! I don’t want to be associated with those butchers!”
Example #2: Jen and Sandy are discussing the topic of welfare. Jen is fairly conservative politically but
she has been an active opponent of racism. Sandy is extremely liberal politically.

Jen: “I was reading over some private studies of welfare and I think it would be better to have people work
for their welfare. For example, people could pick up trash, put up signs, and maybe even do skilled labor
that they are qualified for. This would probably make people feel better about themselves and it would get
more out of our tax money.”
Sandy: “I see. So, you want to have the poor people out on the streets picking up trash for their checks?
Well, you know that is exactly the position David Count endorses.”
Jen: “Who is he?”
Sandy: “I’m surprised you don’t know him, seeing how alike you two are. He was a Grand Mooky Wizard
for the Aryan Pure White League and is well known for his hatred of blacks and other minorities. With
your views, you’d fit right in to his little racist club.”
Jen: “So, I should reject my view just because I share it with some racist?” Sandy: “Of course.”

Example #3:
Libard and Ferris are discussing who they are going to vote for as the next department chair in the
philosophy department. Libard is a radical feminist and she despises Wayne and Bill, who are two sexist
professors in the department.

Ferris: “So, who are you going to vote for?”

Libard: ‘Well, I was thinking about voting for Jane, since she is a woman and there has never been a woman
chair here. But, I think that Steve will do an excellent job. He has a lot of clout in the university and he is a
decent person.”
Ferris: “You know, Wayne and Bill are supporting him. They really like the idea of having Steve as the
new chair. I never thought I’d see you and those two pigs on the same side.”
Libard: “Well, maybe it is time that we have a woman as chair.”

Poisoning the Well

Description: This sort of “reasoning” involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by
presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This “argument” has the following
form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of “reasoning” is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that
the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject
any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it
is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when
Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Hominem in which the attack is made prior to the person
even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of “reasoning” is quite
poor.

Example #1:
“Don’t listen to him, he’s a scoundrel.”

Example #2:
“Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do
not have the best wishes of the university at heart.”

Example #3:
You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend’s boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him,
everything you hear him say is tainted. Example #4 Before class Bill: “Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I
think he is some sort of Eurocentric fascist.” Jill: “Yeah.” During Class: Prof. Jones: “…and so we see that
there was never any ‘Golden Age of Matriarchy’ in 1895 in America.” After Class: Bill: “See what I mean?”
Jill: “Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn’t.”
Example #4
Before class
Bill: “Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of Eurocentric fascist.”
Jill: “Yeah.” During Class: Prof. Jones: “…and so we see that there was never any ‘Golden Age of
Matriarchy’ in 1895 in America.”
After Class:
Bill: “See what I mean?”
Jill: “Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn’t.”

Straw Man
Description:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and
substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has
the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does
not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a
person to hurt the person.

Example #1:
Prof. Jones: “The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000.”
Prof. Smith: “What are we going to do?”
Prof. Brown: “I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of
it.”
Prof. Jones: “We could reduce our scheduled raises instead.”
Prof. Brown:” I can’t understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones.”

Example #2:
“Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can’t
understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that.”

Example #3:
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: “We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy.”
Bill: “Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out every day?”
Jill: I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever,
which is just ridiculous.”

Red Herring
Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase
Description:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from
the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and
to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.

2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant
to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of
discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Example #1:
“Argument” against a bond measure: “

We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on
this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous.”

Example #2:
“Argument” for a tax cut:

“You know, I’ve begun to think that there is some merit in the Republicans’ tax cut plan. I suggest that you
come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to
show that we are as tough‐minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants.

Example #3:
“Argument” for making grad school requirements stricter:
“I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that
you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected.”