Fallacies are fake or
deceptive arguments, arguments that prove nothing. Fallacies often seem
superficially sound, and they far too often retain immense persuasive power
even after being clearly exposed as false. Like epidemics, fallacies sometimes "burn
through" entire populations, often with the most tragic results, before
their power is diminished or lost. Fallacies are not always deliberate, but a
good scholar’s purpose is always to identify and unmask fallacies in arguments.
Note that many of these definitions overlap, but the goal here is to identify
contemporary and classic fallacies as they are used in today's discourse.
Effort has been made to avoid mere word-games (e.g., "The Fallacist's
Fallacy," or the famous "Crocodile's Paradox" of classic times),
or the so-called "fallacies" of purely formal and symbolic, business
and financial, religious or theological logic.
No claim is made to "academic rigor" in this listing.
1. The A Priori Argument (also,
Rationalization; Dogmatism, Proof Texting.): A corrupt argument from logos,
starting with a given, pre-set belief, dogma, doctrine, scripture verse,
"fact" or conclusion and then searching for any reasonable or
reasonable-sounding argument to rationalize, defend or justify it. Certain ideologues
and religious fundamentalists are proud to use this fallacy as their primary
method of "reasoning" and some are even honest enough to say so. The
opposite of this fallacy is the Taboo.
2. Ableism (also, The Con Artist's
Fallacy; The Thief's Fallacy; Shearing the Sheep; Profiteering): A corrupt
argument from ethos, arguing that because someone is intellectually slower,
physically or emotionally less capable, less ambitious, less aggressive, less
young or less healthy (or simply more trusting or less lucky) than others, s/he
"naturally" deserves less in life and may be freely victimized by
those who are stronger, healthier, greedier, more powerful or more gifted (or
who simply have more immediate felt need for money, often involving some form
of addiction). This fallacy is a "softer" argumentum ad baculum. When
challenged, those who practice this fallacy seem to most often shrug their
shoulders and mumble "Life is rough and you gotta be tough,"
"It's no skin off my nose," "That's free enterprise,"
"That's the way life is!" or similar.
3. Actions have Consequences: The contemporary fallacy of a person in power
falsely describing an imposed punishment or penalty as a
"consequence" of another's negative act. E.g.," The consequences
of your misbehavior could include suspension or expulsion." A corrupt
argument from ethos, arrogating to oneself or to one's rules or laws an ethos
of cosmic inevitability, i.e., the ethos of God, Fate, Karma, Destiny or
Reality Itself. Freezing to death is a
natural "consequence" of going out naked in subzero weather but going
to prison is a punishment for bank robbery, not a natural, inevitable or
unavoidable "consequence," of robbing a bank. Not to be confused with the Argument from
Consequences, which is quite different. See also Blaming the Victim. An
opposite fallacy is that of Moral Licensing.
4. The Ad Hominem Argument (also,
"Personal attack," "Poisoning the well"): The fallacy of
attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s intelligence,
morals, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation, using a
corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "That so-called judge;"
or "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also
"Guilt by Association." The opposite of this is the "Star
Power" fallacy. Another obverse of
Ad Hominem is the Token Endorsement Fallacy, where, in the words of scholar
Lara Bhasin, "Individual A has been accused of anti-Semitism, but
Individual B is Jewish and says Individual A is not anti-Semitic, and the implication
of course is that we can believe Individual B because, being Jewish, he has
special knowledge of anti- Semitism. Or, a presidential candidate is accused of
anti-Muslim bigotry, but someone finds a testimony from a Muslim who voted for
said candidate, and this is trotted out as evidence against the candidate's
bigotry." The same fallacy would
apply to a sports team offensively named after a marginalized ethnic
group, but which has obtained the
endorsement (freely given or paid) of some member, traditional leader or tribal
council of that marginalized group so that the otherwise-offensive team name
and logo magically become "okay" and nonracist.
5. The Affective Fallacy (also The
Romantic Fallacy; Emotion over Reflection; "Follow Your Heart"): A fallacy
of Pathos, that one's emotions, urges or "feelings" are innate and in
every case self-validating, autonomous, and above any human intent or act of
will (one's own or others'), and are thus immune to challenge or critique. (In
fact, researchers now [2017] have robust scientific evidence that emotions are
actually cognitive and not innate.) In this fallacy one argues, "My
feelings are valid, so therefore you have no right to criticize what I say or
do, or how I say or do it." This latter is also a fallacy of stasis,
confusing a respectful and reasoned response or refutation with personal
invalidation, disrespect, prejudice, bigotry, sexism, homophobia or hostility.
A grossly sexist form of the Affective Fallacy is the well-known crude fallacy
that the phallus "Has No Conscience," i.e., since (particularly male)
sexuality is self-validating and beyond voluntary control what one does with it
cannot be controlled and is not open to criticism, an assertion eagerly
embraced and extended beyond the male gender in certain reifications of
"Desire" in contemporary academic theory. See also, Playing on
Emotion. Opposite to this fallacy is the Chosen Emotion Fallacy (thanks to
scholar Marc Lawson for identifying this fallacy), in which one falsely claims complete,
or at least reliable prior voluntary control over one's own autonomic, "gut level" affective
reactions. Related to this last is the ancient fallacy of Angelism, falsely
claiming that one is capable of "objective" reasoning without
emotion, claiming for oneself a viewpoint of Olympian "disinterested objectivity" or
pretending to place oneself above all emotion. See also, Mortification.
6. Alphabet Soup: A corrupt modern
implicit fallacy from ethos in which a person inappropriately overuses
acronyms, abbreviations, form numbers and arcane insider "shop talk"
primarily to prove to an audience that s/he "speaks their language"
and is "one of them" and to shut out, confuse or impress outsiders.
E.g., "It's not uncommon for a K-12 with ASD to be both GT and LD;"
"I had a twenty-minute DX Q-so on 15 with a Zed-S1 and a couple of LU2's
even though the QR-Nancy was 10 over S9;" or "I hope I'll keep on
seeing my BAQ on my LES until the day I get my DD214." See also, Name Calling. This fallacy has
recently become common in media pharmaceutical advertising in the United
States, where "Alphabet Soup" is used to create false identification
with and to exploit patient groups
suffering from specific illnesses or conditions, e.g., "If you have DPC
with associated ZL you can keep your B2D under control with Luglugmena®. Ask
your doctor today about Luglugmena® to control symptoms of ZL and to keep your
CMQ under that 7.62 threshold. Side effects of
Luglugmena® may include K4 Syndrome, lycanthropic bicephaly, BMJ and
sometimes, death. Do not take Luglugmena® if you are allergic to dogbite or
have type D Flinder's Garbosis."
7. Alternative Truth (also, Alt Facts): A
newly-famous contemporary fallacy of logos rooted in postmodernism, denying the
resilience of facts or truth as such. Writer Hannah Arendt, in her The Origins
of Totalitarianism (1951) warned that "The ideal subject of totalitarian
rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom
the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer
exists." Journalist Leslie Grass (2017) writes in her Blog
Reachoutrecovery.com, "Is there someone in your life who insists things
happened that didn’t happen, or has a completely different version of events in
which you have the facts? It’s a form of mind control and is very common among
families dealing with substance and behavior problems." She suggests that
such "Alternate Facts" work to "put you off balance,"
"control the story," and "make you think you're crazy," and
she notes that "presenting alternate facts is the hallmark of
untrustworthy people." The
Alternative Truth fallacy is related to the Big Lie Technique. See also
Gaslighting, Blind Loyalty, The Big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy, and Two Truths
8. The Appeal to Closure: The contemporary
fallacy that an argument, standpoint, action or conclusion no matter how
questionable must be accepted as final or else the point will remain unsettled,
which is unthinkable because those affected will be denied "closure."
This fallacy falsely reifies a specialized term from Gestalt Psychology
(closure) while refusing to recognize the undeniable truth that some points
will indeed remain open and unsettled, perhaps forever. E.g., "Society
would be protected, crime would be deterred and justice served if we sentenced
you to life without parole, but we need to execute you in order to provide some
closure." See also, Argument from Ignorance, and Argument from
Consequences. The opposite of this fallacy is the Paralysis of Analysis.
9. The Appeal to Heaven: (also, Argumentum
ad Coelum, Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, American Exceptionalism,
or the Special Covenant): An ancient, extremely dangerous fallacy (a deluded
argument from ethos) that of claiming to know the mind of God (or History, or a
higher power), who has allegedly ordered or anointed, supports or approves of
one's own country, standpoint or actions so no further justification is
required and no serious challenge is possible. (E.g., "God ordered me to
kill my children," or "We need to take away your land, since God [or
Scripture, or Manifest Destiny, or Fate, or Heaven] has given it to us as our
own.") A private individual who seriously asserts this fallacy risks
ending up in a psychiatric ward, but groups or nations who do it are far too often
taken seriously. Practiced by those who will not or cannot tell God's will from
their own, this vicious (and blasphemous) fallacy has been the cause of endless
bloodshed over history. See also, Moral Superiority, and Magical Thinking. Also
applies to deluded negative Appeals to Heaven, e.g., "You say that famine
and ecological collapse due to climate change are real dangers, but I know God
wouldn't ever let that happen!" The opposite of the Appeal to Heaven is
the Job's Comforter fallacy.
10. The Appeal to Nature (also,
Biologizing; The Green Fallacy): The contemporary romantic fallacy of ethos
(that of "Mother Nature") that if something is "natural" it
has to be good, healthy and beneficial.
E.g., "Our premium herb tea is lovingly brewed from the finest
freshly-picked and lovingly dried natural T. Radicans leaves. Those who dismiss
it as mere 'Poison Ivy' don't understand that it's 100% organic, with no
additives, GMO's or artificial ingredients
It's time to Go Green and lay back in Mother's arms." One who employs
or falls for this fallacy forgets the old truism that left to itself, nature is
indeed "red in tooth and claw." This fallacy also applies to
arguments alleging that something is "unnatural," or "against
nature" and thus evil, e.g. "Homosexuality should be outlawed because
it's against nature," arrogating to oneself the capacity to define what is
"natural" and what is unnatural or perverted.
11. The Appeal to Pity: (also,
"Argumentum ad Miserecordiam"): The fallacy of urging an audience to
“root for the underdog” regardless of the issues at hand. A classic example is,
“Those poor, cute little squeaky mice are being gobbled up by mean, nasty cats
ten times their size!” A contemporary example might be America's uncritical popular support for
the Arab Spring movement of 2010-2012 in which The People ("The
underdogs") were seen to be heroically overthrowing cruel dictatorships, a
movement that has resulted in retrospect in chaos, anarchy, mass suffering,
civil war, the regional collapse of civilization and rise of extremism, and the
largest refugee crisis since World War II. A corrupt argument from pathos. See
also, Playing to Emotions. The opposite of the Appeal to Pity is the Appeal to
Rigor, an argument (often based on machismo or on manipulating an audience's fear)
based on mercilessness. E.g., "I'm a real man, not like those bleeding
hearts, and I'll be tough on [fill in the name of the enemy or bogeyman of the
hour]." In academia this latter
fallacy applies to politically-motivated or elitist calls for "Academic
Rigor" and against university developmental / remedial classes, open
admissions, "dumbing down" and "grade inflation."
12. The Appeal to Tradition: (also,
Conservative Bias; Back in Those Good Times, "The Good Old Days"):
The ancient fallacy that a standpoint, situation or action is right, proper and
correct simply because it has "always" been that way, because people
have "always" thought that way, or because it was that way long ago
(most often meaning in the audience members' youth or childhood, not before)
and still continues to serve one particular group very well. A corrupted
argument from ethos (that of past generations). E.g., "In America, women
have always been paid less, so let's not mess with long-standing
tradition." See also Argument from
Inertia, and Default Bias. The opposite of this is The Appeal to Novelty (also,
"Pro-Innovation bias," "Recency Bias," and "The Bad
Old Days"), e.g., "It's NEW, and [therefore it must be]
improved!" or "This is the very latest discovery--it has to be
better."
13. Appeasement (also,
"Assertiveness," "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"): This
fallacy, most often popularly connected to the shameful pre-World War II
appeasement of Hitler, is in fact still commonly practiced in public agencies,
education and retail business today, e.g. "The customer is always right,
even when they're wrong. Don't argue with them, just give'em what they want so
they'll shut up and go away, and not make a stink--it's cheaper and easier than
a lawsuit." Widespread acceptance
of this fallacy encourages offensive, uncivil public behavior and sometimes the
development of a coarse subculture of obnoxious, "assertive"
manipulators who, like "spoiled" children, use their knowledge of how
to "make a stink" as a primary coping skill in order to get what they
want when they want it. See also Bribery.
14. The Argument from Consequences (also,
Outcome Bias): The major fallacy of logos, arguing that something cannot be
true because if it were the consequences or outcome would be unacceptable.
(E.g., "Global climate change cannot be caused by human burning of fossil
fuels, because if it were, switching to non-polluting energy sources would
bankrupt American industry," or "Doctor, that's wrong! I can't have
terminal cancer, because if I did that'd mean that I won't live to see my kids
get married!") Not to be confused with Actions have Consequences.
15. The Argument from Ignorance (also,
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never
know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or
that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to
positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures, because
we weren't there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation
account is literally true as written!”
This fallacy includes Attacking the Evidence (also, "Whataboutism"),
e.g. "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even
faked! What about that? That proves
you're wrong and I'm right!" This fallacy usually includes fallacious
“Either-Or Reasoning” as well: E.g., “The vet can't find any reasonable
explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him!
There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos, and a
fallacy commonly found in American political, judicial and forensic reasoning.
16. The famous "Flying Spaghetti Monster"
meme is a contemporary refutation of this fallacy--simply because we cannot
disprove the existence of such an absurd creature does not argue for its
existence. See also A Priori Argument, Appeal to Closure, The Simpleton's
Fallacy, and Argumentum ex Silentio.
17. The Argument from Incredulity: The
popular fallacy of doubting or rejecting a novel claim or argument out of hand
simply because it appears superficially "incredible,"
"insane" or "crazy," or because it goes against one's own
personal beliefs, prior experience or ideology.
This cynical fallacy falsely reifies the saying "Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof" into an absolute law of logic. See also Hoyle's Fallacy. The common, popular-level
form of this fallacy is dismissing surprising, extraordinary or unfamiliar
arguments and evidence with a wave of the hand, a shake of the head, and a
mutter of "that's crazy!"
18. The Argument from Inertia (also “Stay
the Course”): The fallacy that it is necessary to continue on a mistaken course
of action even after discovering it is mistaken, because changing course would
mean admitting that one's decision (or one's leader, or one's faith) was wrong,
and all one's effort, expense, sacrifice and even bloodshed was for nothing,
and that's unthinkable. A variety of the Argument from Consequences, E for
Effort, or the Appeal to Tradition. See also "Throwing Good Money After
Bad."
19. The Argument from Motives (also
Questioning Motives): The fallacy of declaring a standpoint or argument invalid
solely because of the evil, corrupt or questionable motives of the one making
the claim. E.g., "Bin Laden wanted us out of Afghanistan, so we have to
keep up the fight!" Even evil people with the most corrupt motives sometimes
say the truth (and even those who have the highest and purest motives are often
wrong or mistaken). A variety of the Ad Hominem argument. The counterpart of
this is the fallacy of falsely justifying or excusing evil or vicious actions
because of the perpetrator's purity of motives or lack of malice. (E.g.,
"Sure, she may have beaten her children bloody now and again but she was a
highly educated, ambitious professional woman at the end of her rope, deprived
of adult conversation and locked up between four walls for years on end with a
bunch of screaming, fighting brats, doing the best she could with what she had.
How can you stand there and accuse her of child abuse?") See also Moral
Licensing.
20. Argumentum ad Baculum ("Argument
from the Club." Also, "Argumentum ad Baculam," "Argument
from Strength," "Muscular Leadership," "Non-negotiable
Demands," "Hard Power," Bullying, The Power-Play, Fascism,
Resolution by Force of Arms.): The fallacy of "persuasion" or
"proving one is right" by force, violence, superior strength, raw
military might, or threats of violence. E.g., "Gimmee your wallet or I'll
knock your head off!" or "We have the perfect right to take your
land, since we have the big guns and you don't." Also applies to indirect forms
of threat. E.g., "Give up your foolish pride, kneel down and accept our
religion today if you don't want to burn in hell forever and ever!"
21. A mainly discursive Argumentum ad
Baculum is that of forcibly silencing opponents, ruling them "out of
order," blocking, censoring or jamming their message, or simply speaking
over them or/speaking more loudly than they do, this last a tactic particularly
attributed to men in mixed-gender discussions.
22. Argumentum ad Mysteriam ("Argument
from Mystery;" also Mystagogy.): A darkened chamber, incense, chanting or
drumming, bowing and kneeling, special robes or headgear, holy rituals and
massed voices reciting sacred mysteries in an unknown tongue have a quasi-hypnotic effect and can often
persuade more strongly than any logical argument. The Puritan Reformation was in large part a
rejection of this fallacy. When used knowingly and deliberately this fallacy is
particularly vicious and accounts for some of the fearsome persuasive power of
cults. An example of an Argumentum ad
Mysteriam is the "Long Ago and Far Away" fallacy, the fact that
facts, evidence, practices or arguments from ancient times, distant lands
and/or "exotic" cultures seem
to acquire a special gravitas or ethos simply because of their antiquity,
language or origin, e.g., publicly chanting Holy Scriptures in their original
(most often incomprehensible) ancient languages, preferring the Greek, Latin,
Assyrian or Old Slavonic Christian Liturgies over their vernacular versions, or
using classic or newly invented Latin names for fallacies in order to support
their validity. See also, Esoteric Knowledge. An obverse of the Argumentum ad
Mysteriam is the Standard Version Fallacy.
23. Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from
Silence): The fallacy that if available sources remain silent or current
knowledge and evidence can prove nothing about a given subject or question this
fact in itself proves the truth of one's claim. E.g., "Science can tell us
nothing about God. That proves God doesn't exist." Or "Science admits
it can tell us nothing about God, so you can't deny that God exists!"
Often misused in the American justice system, where, contrary to the 5th
Amendment, remaining silent or
"taking the Fifth" is often falsely portrayed as proof of guilt.
E.g., "Mr. Hixon has no alibi for the evening of January 15th. This proves
that he was in fact in room 331 at the Smuggler's Inn, murdering his wife with
a hatchet!" In today's America, choosing to remain silent in the face of a
police officer's questions can make one guilty enough to be arrested or even
shot. See also, Argument from Ignorance.
24. Availability Bias (also, Attention
Bias, Anchoring Bias): A fallacy of logos stemming from the natural tendency to
give undue attention and importance to information that is immediately
available at hand, particularly the first or last information received, and to
minimize or ignore broader data or wider evidence that clearly exists but is
not as easily remembered or accessed. E.g., "We know from experience that
this doesn't work," when "experience" means the most recent
local experience, ignoring overwhelming experience from other places and times
where it has worked and does work. This fallacy is also related to the fallacy
of Hyperbole, where an immediate instance is immediately proclaimed "the most
significant in all of human history," or the "worst in the whole
world!" This latter fallacy works extremely well with less-educated
audiences and those whose "whole world" is very small indeed,
audiences who "hate history" and whose historical memory spans several
weeks at best.
25. The Bandwagon Fallacy (also, Argument
from Common Sense, Argumentum ad Populum): The fallacy of arguing that because
"everyone," "the American people," or "the
majority" (or someone in power who has widespread backing) supposedly thinks
or does something, it must be true and right. E.g., "Whether there
actually is large scale voter fraud in America or not, many people now think
there is and that makes it so." Sometimes also includes Lying with
Statistics, e.g. “Over 75% of Americans believe that crooked Bob Hodiak is a
thief, a liar and a pervert. There may not be any evidence, but for anyone with
half a brain that conclusively proves that Crooked Bob should go to jail!”
This is sometimes combined with the "Argumentum
ad Baculum," e.g., "Like it or not, it's time to choose sides: Are
you going to get on board the bandwagon
with everyone else, or get crushed under the wheels as it goes by?" Or in
the 2017 words of former White House spokesperson Sean Spicer, ""They
should either get with the program or they can go," For the opposite of this fallacy see the
Romantic Rebel fallacy. See also The Big Lie Technique.
26. The Big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy (also,
the Fuhrerprinzip; Mad Leader Disease): A not-uncommon but extreme example of
the Blind Loyalty Fallacy below, in which a tyrannical boss, military commander
or cult-leader tells followers "Don't think with your little brains (the
brain in your head), but with your BIG brain (mine)." This last is
sometimes expressed in positive terms, i.e., "You don't have to worry and
stress out about the rightness or wrongness of what you are doing since I, the
Leader. am assuming all moral and legal responsibility for all your actions. So
long as you are following orders I will defend you and gladly accept all the
consequences up to and including eternal damnation if I'm wrong." The
opposite of this the fallacy of "Plausible Deniability." See also,
"Just Do It!", and "Gaslighting."
27. The Big "But" Fallacy (also,
Special Pleading): The fallacy of
enunciating a generally-accepted principle and then directly negating it with a
"but." Often this takes the form of the "Special Case,"
which is supposedly exempt from the usual rules of law, logic, morality, ethics
or even credibility E.g., "As
Americans we believe on principle that every human being has the inalienable
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including in the case of
criminal accusations a fair and speedy trial before a jury of one's peers. BUT,
your crime was so unspeakable and a trial would be so problematic for national
security that it justifies locking you up for life in Guantanamo without trial,
conviction or possibility of appeal."
Or, "Yes, Honey, I still love you more than life itself, and I know
that in my wedding vows I promised before God that I'd be faithful to you
'until death do us part,' but this was a special case..." See also, "Shopping Hungry," and
"We Have to do Something!"
28. The Big Lie Technique (also the Bold
Faced Lie; "Staying on Message."): The contemporary fallacy of
repeating a lie, fallacy, slogan, talking-point, nonsense-statement or
deceptive half-truth over and over in different forms (particularly in the
media) until it becomes part of daily discourse and people accept it without
further proof or evidence. Sometimes the bolder and more outlandish the Big Lie
becomes the more credible it seems to a willing, most often angry audience.
E.g., "What about the Jewish Question?" Note that when this
particular phony debate was going on there was no "Jewish Question,"
only a "Nazi Question," but hardly anybody in power recognized or
wanted to talk about that, while far too many ordinary Germans were only too
ready to find a convenient scapegoat to blame for their suffering during the
Depression. Writer Miles J. Brewer expertly demolishes The Big Lie Technique in
his classic (1930) short story, "The Gostak and the Doshes." However,
more contemporary examples of the Big Lie fallacy might be the completely
fictitious August 4, 1964 "Tonkin Gulf Incident" concocted under
Lyndon Johnson as a false justification for escalating the Vietnam War, or the
non-existent "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq (conveniently
abbreviated "WMD's" in order to lend this Big Lie a legitimizing,
military-sounding "Alphabet Soup" ethos), used in 2003 as a false
justification for the Second Gulf War. The November, 2016 U.S.
President-elect's statement that "millions" of ineligible votes were
cast in that year's American. presidential election appears to be a classic Big
Lie. See also, Alternative Truth; The Bandwagon Fallacy, the Straw Man,
Alphabet Soup, and Propaganda.
29. Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience,
Unthinking Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, the Nuremberg
Defense): The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and
solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s
parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding
officers) says it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a gravely
corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth, above one's own reason and above conscience.
In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal
behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just
obeying orders." See also, The Big
Brain/Little Brain Fallacy, and The "Soldiers' Honor" Fallacy.
30. Blood is Thicker than Water (also
Favoritism; Compadrismo; "For my friends, anything."): The reverse of
the "Ad Hominem" fallacy, a corrupt argument from ethos where a
statement, argument or action is automatically regarded as true, correct and
above challenge because one is related to, knows and likes, or is on the same
team or belongs to the same religion as the individual involved. (E.g., "My brother-in-law says he saw
you goofing off on the job. You're a hard worker but who am I going to believe,
you or him? You're fired!")
31. Brainwashing (also, Propaganda,
"Radicalization."): The Cold War-era fantasy that an enemy can
instantly win over an unsuspecting audience with their vile but somehow
unspeakably persuasive "propaganda,"
e.g., "Don't look at that website! They're trying to brainwash you
with their propaganda!" Historically, "brainwashing" refers more
properly to the inhuman Argumentum ad Baculum of "beating an argument into" a
prisoner via a combination of pain, fear, sensory or sleep deprivation,
prolonged abuse and sophisticated psychological manipulation (also, the
"Stockholm Syndrome."). Such "brainwashing" can also be
accomplished by pleasure ("Love Bombing,"); e.g., "Did you like
that? I know you did. Well, there's lots more where that came from when you
sign on with us!" (See also, "Bribery.") An unspeakably sinister
form of persuasion by brainwashing involves deliberately addicting a person to
drugs and then providing or withholding the substance depending on the addict's
compliance. Note: Only the "other side" brainwashes. "We"
never brainwash.
32. Bribery (also, Material Persuasion,
Material Incentive, Financial Incentive). The fallacy of "persuasion"
by bribery, gifts or favors, the reverse of the Argumentum ad Baculum. As is
well known, someone who is persuaded by bribery rarely "stays persuaded"
unless the bribes keep on coming in and increasing with time. See also
Appeasement.
33. Calling "Cards": A
contemporary fallacy of logos, arbitrarily and falsely dismissing familiar or
easily-anticipated reasoned objections to one's standpoint with a wave of the
hand, as mere "cards" in some sort of a "game" of rhetoric,
e.g. "Don't try to play the 'Race Card' against me," or "She's
playing the 'Woman Card' again," or "That 'Hitler Card' won't score
with me in this argument." See also, The Taboo, and Political Correctness.
34. Circular Reasoning (also, The Vicious
Circle; Catch 22, Begging the Question, Circulus in Probando): A fallacy of
logos where A is because of B, and B is because of A, e.g., "You can't get
a job without experience, and you can't get experience without a job."
Also refers to falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the same
statement in different words. E.g., “The witchcraft problem is the most urgent
spiritual crisis in the world today. Why? Because witches threaten our very
eternal salvation.” A corrupt argument from logos. See also the "Big Lie
technique."
35. The Complex Question: The contemporary
fallacy of demanding a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered
without first analyzing or challenging the basis of the question itself. E.g.,
"Just answer me 'yes' or 'no': Did
you think you could get away with plagiarism and not suffer the
consequences?" Or, "Why did you rob that bank?" Also applies to
situations where one is forced to either accept or reject complex standpoints
or propositions containing both acceptable and unacceptable parts. A corruption
of the argument from logos. A counterpart of Either/Or Reasoning.
36. Confirmation Bias: A fallacy of logos,
recognizing the fact that one always tends to notice, search out, select and
share evidence that confirms one's own standpoint and beliefs, as opposed to
contrary evidence. This fallacy is how "fortune tellers" work--If I
am told I will meet a "tall, dark stranger" I will be on the lookout
for a tall, dark stranger, and when I meet someone even marginally meeting that
description I will marvel at the correctness of the "psychic's"
prediction. In contemporary times Confirmation Bias is most often seen in the
tendency of various audiences to "curate their political environments,
subsisting on one-sided information diets and [even] selecting into politically
homogeneous neighborhoods" (Michael A. Neblo et al., 2017, Science
magazine.) Confirmation Bias means that people tend to seek out and follow
solely those media outlets that confirm their common ideological and cultural
biases, sometimes to an degree that leads a the false (implicit or even
explicit) conclusion that "everyone" agrees with that bias and that
anyone who doesn't is "crazy," "looney," evil or
"radicalized." See also, "Half Truth," and
"Defensiveness."
37. Cost Bias: A fallacy of ethos (that of
a product), the fact that something expensive (either in terms of money, or
something that is "hard fought" or "hard won" or for which
one "paid dearly") is generally valued more highly than something
obtained more easily or cheaply, regardless of the item's real quality, utility
or true value to the purchaser. E. g., "Hey, I worked hard to get this
car! It may be nothing but a clunker
that can't make it up a steep hill, but it's mine, and to me it's better than
some millionaire's limo." Also
applies to judging the quality of an item solely by price, label, brand or
source, e.g., "Hey, you there in the Jay-Mart suit! Har-har!"
38. Default Bias: (also, Normalization of
Evil, "Deal with it;" "If it ain't broke, don't fix it;"
Acquiescence; "Making one's peace with the situation;" "Get used
to it;" "Whatever is, is right;"
"It is what it is;" "Let it be, let it be;"
"This is the best of all possible worlds [or, the only possible world];"
"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."): The logical
fallacy of automatically favoring or accepting a situation simply because it
exists right now, and arguing that any other alternative is mad, unthinkable,
impossible, or at least would take too much effort, expense, stress or risk to
change. The opposite of this fallacy is that of Nihilism ("Tear it all
down!"), blindly rejecting what exists in favor of what could be, the
infantile disorder of romanticizing anarchy, chaos [an ideology sometimes
called political "Chaos Theory"], disorder, "permanent
revolution," or change for change's sake.
39. Defensiveness (also, Choice-support
Bias): A fallacy of ethos (one's own), in which after one has taken a given
decision, commitment or course of action, one automatically tends to defend
that decision and to irrationally dismiss opposing options even when one's
decision later on proves to be shaky or wrong. E.g., "Yeah, I voted for
Snith. Sure, he turned out to be a crook and a liar and he got us into war, but
I still say that at that time he was better than the available
alternatives!" See also
"Argument from Inertia" and "Confirmation Bias."
40. Deliberate Ignorance: (also,
Closed-mindedness; "I don't want to hear it!"; Motivated Ignorance;
Tuning Out; Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil [The Three Monkeys'
Fallacy]): As described by author and commentator Brian Resnik on Vox.com
(2017), this is the fallacy of simply choosing not to listen, "tuning
out" or turning off any information, evidence or arguments that challenge
one's beliefs, ideology, standpoint, or peace of mind, following the popular
humorous dictum: "Don't try to confuse me with the facts; my mind is made
up!" This seemingly innocuous fallacy has enabled the most vicious
tyrannies and abuses over history, and continues to do so today. See also The
Third Person Effect, and The Positive Thinking Fallacy.
41. Diminished Responsibility: The common
contemporary fallacy of applying a specialized judicial concept (that criminal
punishment should be less if one's judgment was impaired) to reality in
general. E.g., "You can't count me absent on Monday--I was hung over and
couldn't come to class so it's not my fault." Or, "Yeah, I was speeding on the freeway
and killed a guy, but I was buzzed out of my mind and didn't know what I was
doing so it didn't matter that much." In reality the death does matter
very much to the victim, to his family and friends and to society in general.
Whether the perpetrator was high or not does not matter at all since the
material results are the same. This also includes the fallacy of Panic, a very
common contemporary fallacy that one's words or actions, no matter how damaging
or evil, somehow don't "count" because "I panicked!" This
fallacy is rooted in the confusion of "consequences" with
"punishment." See also
"Venting."
42. Disciplinary Blinders: A very common
contemporary scholarly or professional fallacy of ethos (that of one's
discipline or field), automatically
disregarding, discounting or ignoring a priori otherwise-relevant research,
arguments and evidence that come from outside one's own professional
discipline, discourse community or academic area of study. E.g., "That may
be true or may be false, but it's so not what we're doing in our field right now." See also, "Star Power" and
"Two Truths." An analogous fallacy is that of Denominational
Blinders, arbitrarily ignoring or waving aside without serious consideration
any arguments or evidence about faith, morality, ethics, spirituality, the
Divine or the afterlife that come from outside one's own specific religious
denomination or faith tradition.
43. Dog-Whistle Politics: An extreme
version of reductionism and sloganeering in the public sphere, a contemporary
fallacy of logos and pathos in which a brief phrase or slogan of the hour,
e.g., "Poison Gas!", "Abortion," "The 1%,"
"9/11," "Zionism," "Islamic Terrorism,"
"Fascism," "Communism," "Big government,"
"Taco trucks!", "Tax and tax and spend and spend,"
"Gun violence," "Gun control," "Freedom of
choice," "Throw 'em in jail!","Amnesty,"
"Criminal Aliens," etc. is flung out as "red meat" that
automatically provokes one's audience into a barking, foaming-at-the-mouth
rage. Any reasoned attempt to more clearly identify, deconstruct or challenge
an opponent's "dog whistle" appeal results in confusion at best and
wild, irrational fury at worst. "Dog whistles" differ in different
places and eras, and they change and lose or gain power quickly, sometimes
making even recent historic texts extraordinarily difficult to interpret. A
common but sad instance of the fallacy of Dog Whistle Politics is that of
"debaters" of differing political shades simply blowing a selection
of discursive "dog whistles" at their audience instead of addressing,
refuting or even bothering to listen to each other's arguments, a situation
resulting in contemporary (2017) allegations that the political Right and Left
are speaking "different languages." See also, Reductionism..
44. The "Draw Your Own Conclusion"
Fallacy (also the Non-argument Argument; Let the Facts Speak for Themselves):
In this fallacy of logos an otherwise uninformed audience is presented with
carefully selected and groomed, "shocking facts" and then prompted to
immediately "draw their own conclusions." E.g., "Crime rates are
more than twice as high among middle-class Patzinaks than among any other
similar population group--draw your own conclusions." It is well known
that those who are allowed to "come to their own conclusions" are
generally much more strongly convinced than those who are given both evidence
and conclusion up front. However, Dr. William Lorimer points out that "The
only rational response to the non-argument is 'So what?' i.e. 'What do you
think you've proved, and why/how do you think you've proved it?'" Related
to this is the well-known "Leading the Witness" Fallacy, where a
sham, sarcastic or biased question is asked solely in order to evoke a desired
answer.
45. E" for Effort. (also Noble Effort;
Trying My Best; The Lost Cause): The common contemporary fallacy of ethos that
something must be right, true, valuable, or worthy of respect and honor solely
because one (or someone else) has put so much sincere good-faith effort or even
sacrifice and bloodshed into it. (See also Appeal to Pity; Argument from
Inertia; Heroes All; or Sob Story.). An
extreme example of this fallacy is Waving the Bloody Shirt (also, the
"Blood of the Martyrs" Fallacy), the fallacy that a cause or
argument, no matter how questionable or reprehensible, cannot be questioned
without dishonoring the blood and sacrifice of those who died so nobly for the
cause. E.g., "Defend the patriotic gore / That flecked the streets of
Baltimore..." (from the official Maryland State Song). See also Cost Bias,
The Soldier's Honor Fallacy, and the Argument from Inertia.
46. Either/Or Reasoning: (also False
Dilemma, False Dichotomy, Black/White Fallacy, False Binary): A fallacy of
logos that falsely offers only two possible options even though a broad range
of possible alternatives, variations and combinations are always readily
available. E.g., "Either you are 100% Simon Straightarrow or you are as
queer as a three dollar bill--it's as simple as that and there's no middle
ground!" Or, “Either you’re in with us all the way or you’re a hostile and
must be destroyed! What's it gonna
be?" Also applies to falsely
contrasting one option or case to another that is not really opposed, e.g.,
falsely countering "Black Lives Matter" with "Blue Lives
Matter" when in fact not a few police officers are themselves African
American, and African Americans and police are not (or ought not to be!)
natural enemies. Or, falsely posing a choice of helping either needy American
veterans or needy foreign refugees, when in fact in today's United States there
are ample resources to easily do both.
See also, Overgeneralization.
47. Equivocation: The fallacy of
deliberately failing to define one's terms, or knowingly and deliberately using
words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand. (E.g.,
President Bill Clinton stating that he did not have sexual relations with
"that woman," meaning no sexual penetration, knowing full well that
the audience will understand his statement as "I had no sexual contact of
any sort with that woman.") This is a corruption of the argument from
logos, and a tactic often used in American jurisprudence. Historically, this referred to a tactic used
during the Reformation-era religious wars, when people were forced to swear
loyalty to one or another side and did as demanded via
"equivocation," i.e.,
"When I solemnly swore true faith and allegiance to the King, I really
meant to King Jesus, King of Kings, and not the evil usurper sitting on the
throne today." This latter fallacy is excessively rare today when the
swearing of oaths has become effectively meaningless except as obscenity or as
speech formally subject to perjury laws in legal or judicial settings.
48. Esoteric Knowledge (also Esoteric
Wisdom; Gnosticism; Inner Truth): A fallacy from logos and ethos, that there is
some knowledge reserved only for the Wise, the Holy or the Enlightened, things
that the masses cannot understand and do not deserve to know, at least not
until they become wiser or more "spiritually advanced." The counterpart of this fallacy is that of
Obscurantism (also Obscurationism; Willful Ignorance), that (almost always said
in a basso profundo voice) "There are some things that mere mortals must
never seek to discover!" E.g., "Scientific experiments that seek to
examine the workings of human sexuality are sinful and morally evil. There are
some things that humans are simply not meant to know!" For the opposite of
this latter, see the "Plain Truth Fallacy." See also, Argumentum ad
Mysteriam.
49. Essentializing: A fallacy of logos that
proposes a person or thing “is what it is and that’s all that it is,” and at
its core will always be the way it is right now (E.g., "All terrorists are
monsters, and will still be terrorist monsters even if they live to be
100," or "'The poor you will always have with you,' so any effort to
eliminate poverty is pointless."). Also refers to the fallacy of arguing
that something is a certain way "by nature," an empty claim that no
amount of proof can refute. (E.g., "Americans are cold and greedy by
nature," or "Women are naturally better cooks than men.") See
also "Default Bias." The
opposite of this is the fallacy of Relativizing, blithely dismissing any and
all arguments against one's standpoint by shrugging one's shoulders and
responding that "Everything's relative," or falsely invoking
Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Quantum
Weirdness or the Theory of Multiple Universes in order to confuse, mystify or
"refute" an opponent. See also, "Red Herring" and "Appeal to Nature."
50. The Etymological Fallacy: (also,
"The Underlying Meaning"): A fallacy of logos, drawing false
conclusions from the (most often long-forgotten) linguistic origins of a
current word, or the alleged meaning or associations of that word in another
language. E.g., "As used in physics, electronics and engineering the term
'hysteresis' is sexist since it originally came from the Greek word for
'uterus' or 'womb.'" Or, "I
refuse to eat fish! Don't you know that the French word for "fish" is
'poisson,' which looks just like the English word 'poison'? Doesn't that
suggest something to you?" Famously, postmodern philosopher Jacques
Derrida played on this fallacy at length in his (1968) "Plato's
Pharmacy."
51. The Excluded Middle: A corrupted
argument from logos that proposes that since a little of something is good,
more must be better (or that if less of something is good, none at all is even
better). E.g., "If eating an apple a day is good for you, eating an
all-apple diet is even better!" or "If a low fat diet prolongs your
life, a no-fat diet should make you live forever!" An opposite of this fallacy is that of Excluded
Outliers, where one arbitrarily discards evidence, examples or results that
disprove one's standpoint by simply describing them as "Weird,"
"Outliers," or "Atypical." See also, "The Big 'But'
Fallacy." Also opposite is the Middle of the Road Fallacy (also, Falacia ad
Temperantiam; "The Politics of the Center;" Marginalization of the
Adversary), where one demonstrates the "reasonableness" of one's own
standpoint (no matter how extreme) not on its own merits, but solely or mainly
by presenting it as the only "moderate" path among two or more
obviously unacceptable extreme alternatives.
E.g., anti-Communist scholar Charles Roig (1979) notes that Vladimir
Lenin successfully argued for Bolshevism as the only available
"moderate" middle path between bomb-throwing Nihilist terrorists on
the ultra-left and a corrupt and hated Czarist autocracy on the right. As Texas
politician Jim Hightower famously declared in an undated quote, "The
middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos."
52. The "F-Bomb" (also Cursing;
Obscenity; Profanity; The Fellacious Fallacy). An adolescent fallacy of pathos,
attempting to strengthen one's argument by gratuitous, unrelated use of sexual,
obscene, vulgar, crude or profane language when such language does nothing to
make an argument stronger, other than perhaps to create a sense of identity
with certain young male or "urban" audiences. This fallacy also
includes adding gratuitous sex scenes or "adult" language to an
otherwise unrelated novel or movie, sometimes simply to avoid the dreaded
"G" rating. Related to this is the Salacious Fallacy, falsely
attracting attention to and thus potential agreement with one's argument by
connecting it somehow to sex, particularly sex that is deviant, perverted or
prohibited (E.g., Arguing against President Bill Clinton's historic legacy by
continuing to wave Monica's Blue Dress, or against Donald Trump's presidency by
highlighting his past recorded of boasting about genital groping).
Historically, this fallacy was deeply implicated with the crime of lynching, in
which false, racist accusations against a Black or minority victim were almost
always salacious in nature and the sensation involved was successfully used to
whip up public emotion to a murderous pitch. See also, Red Herring.
53. The False Analogy: The fallacy of
incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion.
E.g., "Just like a cat needs to prowl, a normal adult can’t be tied down
to one single lover."
54. The opposite of this fallacy is the Sui
Generis Fallacy (also, Differance), a postmodern stance that rejects the
validity of analogy and of inductive reasoning altogether because any given
person, place, thing or idea under consideration is "sui generis"
i.e., different and unique, in a class unto itself.
55. Finish the Job: The dangerous contemporary fallacy, often
aimed at a lesser-educated or working class audience, that an action or
standpoint (or the continuation of the action or standpoint) may not be
questioned or discussed because there is "a job to be done" or
finished, falsely assuming all "jobs" are meaningless but never to be
questioned. Sometimes those involved internalize ("buy into") the
"job" and make the task a part of their own ethos. (E.g., "Ours is not to reason why / Ours
is but to do or die.") Related to this is the "Just a Job"
fallacy. (E.g., "How can torturers stand to look at themselves in the
mirror? But I guess it's OK because for them it's just the job that they signed
up to do.") (See also "Blind
Loyalty," "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy" and the "Argument
from Inertia.")
56. The Free Speech Fallacy: The infantile
fallacy of responding to challenges to one's statements and standpoints by
whining, "It's a free country, isn't it?
I can say anything I want to!" A contemporary extreme case of this
fallacy is the "Safe Space," or "Safe Place," where it is
not allowed to refute, challenge or even discuss another's beliefs because that
might be too uncomfortable or "triggery" for emotionally fragile
individuals. E.g., "All I told him was, 'Jesus loves the little children,'
but then he turned around and asked me 'What about Zika?' That's mean. I think
I'm going to cry!" Prof. Bill Hart
Davidson (2017) notes that "Ironically, the most strident calls for
'safety' come from those who want us to issue protections for discredited
ideas. Things that science doesn't support AND that have destroyed lives -
things like the inherent superiority of one race over another. Those ideas
wither under demands for evidence. They *are* unwelcome. But let's be clear:
they are unwelcome because they have not survived the challenge of
scrutiny."
57. Gaslighting: A recently-prominent,
vicious fallacy of logic, invalidating a person's own knowledge and experiences
by deliberately twisting or distorting known facts, memories, scenes, events
and evidence in order to disorient a vulnerable opponent and to make him or her
doubt his/her reason. E.g., "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?" Or, "You
claim you saw me in bed with her? Think again!
You're crazy!" This fallacy is named after British playwright
Patrick Hamilton's 1938 stage play "Gas Light," also known as
"Angel Street." See also,
"Blind Loyalty," "The Big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy," and
"Alternative Truth."
58. Guilt by Association: The fallacy of
trying to refute or condemn someone's standpoint, arguments or actions by
evoking the negative ethos of those with whom one is identified or of a group,
party, religion or race to which he or she belongs or was once associated with.
A form of Ad Hominem Argument,. e.g., "Don't listen to her. She's a
Republican so you can't trust anything she says," or "Are you or have
you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" An extreme instance of this is the
Machiavellian "For my enemies, nothing" Fallacy, where real or
perceived "enemies" are by definition always wrong and must be
conceded nothing, not even the time of day, e.g., "He's a Republican, so
even if he said the sky is blue I wouldn't believe him."
59. The Half Truth (also Card Stacking,
Stacking the Deck, Incomplete Information): A corrupt argument from logos, the
fallacy of consciously selecting, collecting and sharing only that evidence
that supports one's own standpoint, telling the strict truth but deliberately
minimizing or omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger
picture and support a false conclusion.(e.g. “The truth is that Bangladesh is
one of the world's fastest-growing countries and can boast of a young,
ambitious and hard-working population, a family-positive culture, a delightful,
warm climate of tropical beaches and swaying palms where it never snows, low
cost medical and dental care, a vibrant faith tradition and a multitude of
places of worship, an exquisite, world-class local cuisine and a swinging
nightclub scene. Taken together, all these solid facts clearly prove that
Bangladesh is one of the world’s most desirable places for young families to
work and raise a family.”) See also,
Confirmation Bias.
60. Hero-Busting (also, "The Perfect
is the Enemy of the Good"): A postmodern fallacy of ethos under which,
since nothing and nobody in this world is perfect there are not and have never
been any heroes: Washington and Jefferson held slaves, Lincoln was (by our
contemporary standards) a racist, Karl Marx had a kid by the housemaid, Martin
Luther King Jr. had an eye for women too, Lenin condemned feminism, the Mahatma
drank his own urine (ugh!), Pope Francis is wrong on abortion, capitalism,
same-sex marriage and women's ordination, Mother Teresa loved suffering and was
wrong on just about everything else too, etc., etc Also applies to the now near-universal
political tactic of ransacking everything an opponent has said, written or done
since infancy in order to find something to misinterpret or condemn (and we all
have something!). An early example of this latter tactic is deftly described in
Robert Penn Warren's classic (1946) novel, All the King's Men. This is the
opposite of the "Heroes All" fallacy. This fallacy has also been
selectively employed at the service of the Identity Fallacy (see below) to
falsely "prove" that "you cannot trust anyone" but a member
of "our" identity-group since everyone else, even the so-called
"heroes," of other groups, are all racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or
hate "us." E.g., In 1862 Lincoln
said he was willing to settle the U.S. Civil War either with or without freeing
the slaves, thus "conclusively proving" that all whites are viciously
racist and that African Americans must do for self and never trust any of
"them," not even those who claim to be allies.
61. Heroes All (also, "Everybody's a
Winner"): The contemporary fallacy that everyone is above average or
extraordinary. A corrupted argument from pathos (not wanting anyone to lose or
to feel bad). Thus, every member of the Armed Services, past or present, who
serves honorably is a national hero, every student who competes in the Science
Fair wins a ribbon or trophy, and every racer is awarded a winner's yellow
jersey. This corruption of the argument from pathos, much ridiculed by American
humorist Garrison Keeler, ignores the fact that if everybody wins nobody wins,
and if everyone's a hero no one's a hero. The logical result of this fallacy is
that, as children's author Alice Childress writes (1973), "A hero ain't
nothing but a sandwich." See also the "Soldiers' Honor Fallacy."
62. Hoyle's Fallacy: A fallacy of logos,
falsely assuming that a possible event of low (even vanishingly low)
probability can never have happened and/or would never happen in real life.
E.g., "The probability of something as complex as human DNA emerging at
random in the time the earth has existed is so infinitesimally small that it
must have required divine intervention."
Or, "The chance of a casual, Saturday-night poker player being
dealt four aces from an honest deck is so negligible that it would never occur
in a lifetime! That proves you
cheated!" See also, Argument from
Incredulity. An obverse of Hoyle's Fallacy is "You Can't Win if You Don't
Play," (also, "Someone's gonna win; It might as well be you!") a
common and cruel contemporary fallacy used to persuade vulnerable audiences,
particularly the poor, the mathematically illiterate and gambling addicts to
waste money on lotteries and other long-shot gambling schemes.
63. I Wish I Had a Magic Wand: The fallacy
of regretfully (and falsely) proclaiming oneself powerless to change a bad or
objectionable situation over which one has power. E.g., "What can we do
about gas prices? As Secretary of Energy I wish I had a magic wand, but I
don't" [shrug] .Or, "No, you can't quit piano lessons. I wish I had a
magic wand and could teach you piano overnight, but I don't, so like it or not,
you have to keep on practicing." The parent, of course, ignores the
possibility that the child may not want or need to learn piano. See also, TINA.
64. The Identity Fallacy (also Identity
Politics; "Die away, ye old forms and logic!"): A corrupt postmodern
argument from ethos, a variety of the Argumentum ad Hominem in which the
validity of one's logic, evidence, experience or arguments depends not on their
own strength but rather on whether the one arguing is a member of a given
social class, generation, ethnic group, gender or sexual orientation,
profession, occupation or subgroup. In this fallacy, valid opposing evidence
and arguments are brushed aside or "othered" without comment or
consideration, as simply not worth arguing about solely because of the lack of
proper background or ethos of the person making the argument, or because the
one arguing does not self-identify as a member of an "in-group."
E.g., "You'd understand me right away if you were Burmese but since you're
not there's no way I can explain it to you," or "Nobody but a nurse
can know what a nurse has to go through." Identity fallacies are
reinforced by common ritual, language, and discourse. However, these fallacies
are occasionally self-interested, driven by the egotistical ambitions of
academics, politicians and would-be group leaders anxious to make their own
careers by carving out a special identity group to the exclusion of existing broader-based identities and
leadership. An Identity Fallacy may lead to scorn or rejection of potentially
useful allies, real or prospective, because they are not of one's own identity.
The Identity Fallacy promotes an exclusivist, sometimes cultish "do for
self" philosophy which in today's world virtually guarantees
self-marginalization and ultimate defeat.
A recent application of the Identity Fallacy is the fallacious
accusation of "Cultural Appropriation," in which those who are not of
the right Identity are condemned for "appropriating" the cuisine,
clothing, language or music of a marginalized group, forgetting the old axiom
that "Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery." Accusations of
Cultural Appropriation are very often related to competing economic interests.
See also, Othering.
65. The Job's Comforter Fallacy (also,
"Karma is a bi**h;" "What
goes around comes around."): The fallacy that since there is no such thing
as random chance and we (I, my group, or my country) are under special
protection of heaven, any misfortune or natural disaster that we suffer must be
a punishment for our own or someone else's secret sin or open wickedness. The
opposite of the Appeal to Heaven, this is the fallacy employed by the Westboro
Baptist Church members who protest fallen service members' funerals all around
the United States. See also, Magical Thinking.
66. Just Do it. (also, "Find a way;" "I don't
care how you do it;" "Accomplish the mission;" "By Any
Means Necessary." ): A pure, abusive
Argumentum ad Baculum (argument from force), in which someone in power
arbitrarily waves aside or overrules the moral objections of subordinates or
followers and orders them to accomplish a goal by any means required, fair or
foul The clear implication is that
unethical or immoral methods should be used. E.g., "You say there's no way
you can finish the dig on schedule because you found an old pioneer gravesite
with a fancy tombstone on the excavation site? Well, find a way! I don't want
to know how you do it, just do it! This is a million dollar contract and we
need it done by Tuesday." See also, Plausible Deniability.
67. Just Plain Folks (also,
"Values"): This corrupt modern argument from ethos argues to a
less-educated or rural audience that the one arguing is "just plain
folks" who is a "plain talker,"
"says what s/he is thinking," "scorns political
correctness," someone who "you don't need a dictionary to understand"
and who thinks like the audience and is thus worthy of belief, unlike some
member of the fancy-talking, latte-sipping Left Coast Political Elite, some
"double-domed professor," "inside-the-beltway Washington
bureaucrat," "tree-hugger" or other despised outsider who
"doesn't think like we do" or "doesn't share our traditional
values." This is a counterpart to
the Ad Hominem Fallacy and most often carries a distinct reek of xenophobia or
racism as well. See also the Plain Truth Fallacy and the Simpleton's Fallacy.
68. The Law of Unintended Consequences
(also, "Every Revolution Ends up Eating its own Young:" Grit;
Resilience Doctrine): In this very dangerous, archly pessimistic postmodern
fallacy the bogus "Law of Unintended Consequences," once a
semi-humorous satirical corollary of "Murphy's Law," is elevated to to
the status of an iron law of history. This fallacy arbitrarily proclaims a
priori that since we can never know everything or foresee anything, sooner or
later in today's "complex world" unforeseeable adverse consequences
and negative side effects (so-called "unknown unknowns") will always
end up blindsiding and overwhelming, defeating and vitiating any and all
"do-gooder" efforts to improve our world. Instead, one must always
expect defeat and be ready to roll with the punches by developing
"grit" or "resilience" as a primary survival skill. This
nihilist fallacy is a practical negation of the the possibility of any valid
argument from logos. See also, TINA.
69. Lying with Statistics: The contemporary
fallacy of misusing true figures and numbers to “prove” unrelated claims. (e.g.
"College tuition costs have actually never been lower. When expressed as a
percentage of the national debt, the cost of getting a college education is
actually far lower today than it was back in 1965!"). A corrupted argument
from logos, often preying on the public's perceived or actual mathematical
ignorance. This includes the Tiny Percentage Fallacy, that an action that is
quite significant in and of itself somehow becomes insignificant simply because
it's a tiny percentage of something much larger. E.g., justifying a travel policy that results in the arbitrary
detention or interception of "only" a few hundred legally-boarded
international travelers as a tiny percentage of the tens of thousands who
normally arrive. Under this same fallacy a consumer who would choke on spending
an extra dollar for two cans of peas will typically ignore $50 extra on the
price of a car or $1000 extra on the price of a house simply because these
differences are "only" a tiny percentage of the much larger amount
being spent. Historically, sales taxes
or value-added taxes (VAT) have successfully gained public acceptance and
remain "under the radar" because of this latter fallacy, even though
amounting to hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in extra tax burden. See also
Half-truth, the Snow Job, and Red Herring.
70. Magical Thinking (also, the Sin of
Presumption):: An ancient but deluded fallacy of logos, that when it comes to
"crunch time," provided one has enough faith, prays hard enough, says
the right words, does the right rituals, "names it and claims it," or
"claims the promise," God will always suspend the laws of the
universe and work a miracle at the request of or for the benefit of the True
Believer. In practice this nihilist fallacy denies the existence of a rational
or predictable universe and thus the possibility of any valid argument from
logic. See also, Positive Thinking, the Appeal to Heaven, and the Job's
Comforter fallacy.
71. Mala Fides (Arguing in Bad Faith; also
Sophism): Using an argument that the
arguer himself or herself knows is not valid.
E.g., An unbeliever attacking believers by throwing verses from their
own Holy Scriptures at them, or a lawyer arguing for the innocence of someone
whom s/he knows full well to be guilty. This latter is a common practice in American
jurisprudence, and is sometimes portrayed as the worst face of
"Sophism." [Special thanks to
Bradley Steffens for pointing out this fallacy!] Included under this fallacy is
the fallacy of Motivational Truth (also,
Demagogy, or Campaign Promises), deliberately lying to "the people"
to gain their support or motivate them toward some action the rhetor perceives
to be desirable (using evil discursive means toward a "good" material
end). A particularly bizarre and corrupt form of this latter fallacy is Self
Deception (also, Whistling by the Graveyard). in which one deliberately and
knowingly deludes oneself in order to achieve a goal, or perhaps simply to
suppress anxiety and maintain one's energy level, enthusiasm, morale, peace of
mind or sanity in moments of adversity.
72. Measurability: A corrupt argument from
logos and ethos (that of science and mathematics), the modern Fallacy of
Measurability proposes that if something cannot be measured and quantified it
does not exist, or is "nothing but anecdotal, touchy-feely stuff"
unworthy of serious consideration, i.e., mere gossip or subjective opinion.
73. Mind-reading (Also,
"Speculation;" "I can read you like a book"): An ancient
fallacy, a corruption of stasis theory, speculating about someone else's
thoughts, emotions, motivations and "body language" and then claiming
to understand these clearly, sometimes more accurately than the person in
question knows themselves. The rhetor deploys this phony "knowledge"
as a fallacious warrant for or against a given standpoint. Scholar Myron Peto
offers as an example the baseless claim that “Obama doesn’t a da** [sic] for
human rights.” Assertions that "call for speculation" are rightly
recognized as fallacious in U.S. judicial proceedings but far too often pass
uncontested in public discourse. The opposite of this fallacy is the postmodern
fallacy of Mind Blindness (also, the Autist's Fallacy), a complete denial of
any normal human capacity for "Theory of Mind," postulating the utter
incommensurability and privacy of minds and thus the impossibility of ever
knowing or truly understanding another's thoughts, emotions, motivations or
intents. This fallacy, much promoted by the late postmodernist guru Jacques
Derrida, necessarily vitiates any form of Stasis Theory. However, the Fallacy
of Mind Blindness has been decisively refuted in several studies, including
recent (2017) research published by the Association for Psychological Science,
and a (2017) Derxel University study indicating how "our minds align when
we communicate."
74. Moral Licensing: The contemporary
ethical fallacy that one's consistently moral life, good behavior or recent
extreme suffering or sacrifice earns him/her the right to commit an immoral act
without repercussions, consequences or punishment. E.g., "I've been good
all year, so one bad won't matter," or
"After what I've been through, God knows I need this." The fallacy of Moral Licensing is also
sometimes applied to nations, e.g., "Those who criticize repression and
the Gulag in the former USSR forget what extraordinary suffering the Russians
went through in World War II and the millions upon millions who
died." See also Argument from
Motives. The opposite of this fallacy is
the (excessively rare in our times) ethical fallacy of Scruples, in which one
obsesses to pathological excess about one's accidental, forgotten, unconfessed
or unforgiven sins and because of them, the seemingly inevitable prospect of
eternal damnation.
75. Moral Superiority (also, Self
Righteousness; the Moral High Ground):
An ancient, immoral and extremely dangerous fallacy, enunciated in
Thomistic / Scholastic philosophy in the late Middle Ages, arguing that
"Evil has no rights that the Good and the Righteous are bound to
respect." That way lies torture,
heretic-burning, and the Inquisition. Those who practice this vicious fallacy
reject any "moral equivalency" (i.e., even-handed treatment) between
themselves (the Righteous) and their enemies (the Wicked), against whom
anything is fair, and to whom nothing must be conceded, not even the right to
life. This fallacy is a specific denial of the ancient "Golden Rule,"
and has been the cause of endless intractable conflict, since if one is
Righteous no negotiation with Evil and its minions is possible; The only
imaginable road to a "just" peace is through total victory, i.e., the
absolute defeat and liquidation of one's Wicked enemies. American folk singer and Nobel Laureate Bob
Dylan expertly demolishes this fallacy in his 1963 protest song, "With God
on Our Side." See also the Appeal to Heaven, and Moving the Goalposts.
76. Mortification (also, Live as Though
You're Dying; Pleasure-hating; No Pain No Gain): An ancient fallacy of logos,
trying to "beat the flesh into submission" by extreme exercise or
ascetic practices, deliberate starvation or infliction of pain, denying the
undeniable fact that discomfort and pain exist for the purpose of warning of
lasting damage to the body. Extreme examples of this fallacy are various forms
of self-flagellation such as practiced by the New Mexico "Penitentes"
during Holy Week or by Shia devotees during Muharram. More common contemporary
manifestations of this fallacy are extreme "insanity" exercise
regimes not intended for normal health, fitness or competitive purposes but
just to "toughen" or "punish" the body. Certain
pop-nutritional theories and diets seem based on this fallacy. Some
contemporary experts suggest that self-mortification (an English word related
to the Latinate French root "mort," or "death.") is in fact
"suicide on the installment plan." Others suggest that it involves a
narcotic-like addiction to the body's natural endorphins. The opposite of this
fallacy is the ancient fallacy of Hedonism, seeking and valuing physical
pleasure as a good in itself, simply for pleasure's sake.
77. Moving the Ball Down the Field (also,
the Sports World Fallacy; "Hey, Sports Fan!"): An instance of faulty
analogy, the common contemporary fallacy of inappropriately and most often
offensively applying sports, hunting or other recreational imagery to unrelated
areas of life, such as war or intimacy. E.g., "Nope, I haven't scored with
Francis yet, but last night I managed to get to third base!" or "We really need to get a ground game
going in Syria if we ever expect to move the ball down the field against ISIS
and Assad." This fallacy is almost always soaked in machismo.
78. Moving the Goalposts (also, Changing
the Rules; All's Fair in Love and War; The Nuclear Option; "Winning isn't
everything, it's the only thing"): A fallacy of logos, demanding certain
proof or evidence, a certain degree of support or a certain number of votes to
decide an issue, and then when this is offered, demanding even more, different
or better support in order to deny victory to an opponent. For those who
practice the fallacy of Moral Superiority (above), Moving the Goalposts is
often perceived as perfectly good and permissible if necessary to prevent the
victory of Wickedness and ensure the triumph of the Righteous.
79. MYOB (Mind Your Own Business; also You're Not the Boss of Me; "Mind
yer own beeswax," "So What?", The Appeal to Privacy): The
contemporary fallacy of arbitrarily prohibiting or terminating any discussion
of one's own standpoints or behavior, no matter how absurd, dangerous, evil or
offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privacy around oneself and one's
actions. A corrupt argument from ethos (one's own). E.g., "Sure, I was
doing eighty and weaving between lanes on Mesa Street--what's it to you? You're
not a cop, you're not my nanny. It's my business if I want to speed, and your
business to get the hell out of my way. Mind your own damn business!" Or,
"Yeah, I killed my baby. So what? Butt out! It wasn't your brat, so it's
none of your damn business!"
Rational discussion is cut off because "it is none of your
business!" See also, "Taboo." The counterpart of this is
"Nobody Will Ever Know," (also "What happens in Vegas stays in
Vegas;" "I Think We're Alone Now," or the Heart of Darkness
Syndrome) the fallacy that just because nobody important is looking (or because
one is on vacation, or away in college, or overseas) one may freely commit immoral,
selfish, negative or evil acts at will without expecting any of the normal
consequences or punishment . Author Joseph Conrad graphically describes this
sort of moral degradation in the character of Kurtz in his classic novel, Heart
of Darkness.
80. Name-Calling: A variety of the "Ad
Hominem" argument. The dangerous fallacy that, simply because of who one
is or is alleged to be, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections
against one's standpoint or actions are automatically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic,
bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. E.g., "My stand on abortion is the
only correct one. To disagree with me, argue with me or question my judgment in
any way would only show what a pig you really are." Also applies to
refuting an argument by simply calling it a "fallacy," or declaring
it invalid without proving why it is invalid, or summarily dismissing arguments or opponents by labeling them
"racist," "communist," "fascist," any name
followed by the suffix "tard" (short for the offensive
"retard") or some other negative name without further explanation. A
subset of this is the Newspeak fallacy, creating identification with a certain
kind of audience by inventing or using racist or offensive, sometimes
military-sounding nicknames for common enemies, e.g., "The damned DINO's
are even worse than the Repugs and the Neocons." Or, "In the Big One
it took us only five years to beat both the J*ps and the Jerries, so more than
a decade and a half after niner-eleven why is it so hard for us to beat a
raggedy bunch of Hajjis and Towel-heads?" Note that originally the word
"Nazi" belonged in this category, but this term has long come into
use as a proper English noun. See also, "Reductionism," "Ad
Hominem Argument," and "Alphabet Soup."
81. The NIMBY Fallacy (Not in My Back Yard;
also "Build a Wall!"; "Lock'em up and throw away the key;"
The Ostrich Strategy; The Gitmo Solution.). The infantile fallacy that a
problem, challenge or threat that is not physically nearby or to which I am not
directly exposed has for all practical
purposes "gone away" and has ceased to exist. Thus, a problem can be
permanently and definitively solved by "making it go away,"
preferably to someplace "out of sight," walled-off or on a distant isle where there
is no news coverage and where nobody important stays. Lacking that, it can be
made to go away by simply eliminating, censoring or ignoring
"negative" media coverage and public discussion of the problem and
focusing on "positive, encouraging" things instead.
82. No Discussion (also No Negotiation; the
Control Voice; Peace through Strength; a Muscular Foreign Policy;
Fascism): A pure Argumentum ad Baculum
that rejects reasoned dialogue, offering either instant, unconditional
compliance/surrender or defeat/death as the only two options for settling even
minor differences, e.g., screaming "Get down on the ground, now!" or
declaring "We don't talk to terrorists." This deadly fallacy falsely
paints real or potential "hostiles" as monsters devoid of all reason,
and far too often contains a very strong element of "machismo" as
well. I.e. "A real, muscular leader never resorts to pantywaist pleading,
apologies, excuses, fancy talk or argument. That's for lawyers, liars and
pansies and is nothing but a delaying tactic. A real man stands tall, says what
he thinks, draws fast and shoots to kill."
The late actor John Wayne frequently portrayed this fallacy in his movie
roles. See also, The Pout.
83. Non-recognition: A deluded fallacy in
which one deliberately chooses not to publicly "recognize" ground truth, usually on the theory that this
would somehow reward evil-doers if we recognize their deeds as real or
consequential. Often the underlying theory is that the situation is
"temporary" and will soon be reversed. E.g., In the decades from 1949
until Richard Nixon's presidency the United States officially refused to
recognize the existence of the most populous nation on earth, the People's
Republic of China, because America supported the U.S.-friendly Republic of
China government on Taiwan instead and hoped they might somehow return to power
on the mainland. Perversely, in 2016 the U.S. President-Elect caused a
significant international flap by chatting with the President of the government
on Taiwan, a de facto violation of long-standing American non-recognition of
that same regime. More than half a century after the Korean War the U.S. still
refuses to pronounce the name of or recognize a nuclear-armed DPRK (North
Korea). An individual who does this risks institutionalization (e.g., "I
refuse to recognize Mom's murder, 'cuz that'd give the victory to the murderer!
I refuse to watch you bury her! Stop!
Stop!") but tragically, such behavior is only too common in
international relations. See also the State Actor Fallacy, Political
Correctness, and The Pout.
84. The
Non Sequitur: The deluded fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have
no logical connection to the argument at hand (e.g. “The reason I flunked your
course is because the U. S. government is now putting out purple five-dollar
bills! Purple!”). (See also Red Herring.)Occasionally involves the breathtaking
arrogance of claiming to have special knowledge of why God, fate, karma or the
Universe is doing certain things. E.g., "This week's earthquake was
obviously meant to punish those people for their great wickedness." See
also, Magical Thinking, and the Appeal to Heaven.
85. Nothing New Under the Sun (also, “Seen
it all before;” "Surprise, surprise;" "Plus ça change, plus
c'est la même chose."): Fairly rare
in contemporary discourse, this deeply cynical fallacy, a corruption of the
argument from logos, falsely proposes that there is not and has never been any
real novelty in this world,. Any argument that there are truly “new” ideas or
phenomena is judged a priori to be
unworthy of serious discussion and dismissed with a jaded sigh and a wave of
the hand as "the same old same old."
E.g., “[Sigh!] Idiots! Don't you see that the current influx of refugees
from the Mideast is just the same old Muslim invasion of Christendom that’s
been going on for 1,400 years?” Or, “Libertarianism is nothing but re-warmed
anarchism, which, in turn, is nothing but the ancient Antinomian Heresy. Like I
told you before, there's nothing new under the sun!”
86. Olfactory Rhetoric (also, "The
Nose Knows"): A vicious, zoological-level fallacy of pathos in which
opponents are marginalized, dehumanized or hated primarily based on their
supposed odor, lack of personal cleanliness, imagined diseases or filth. E.
g., "Those demonstrators are
demanding something or another but I'll only talk to them if first they go home
and take a bath!" Or, "I can smell a Jew a block away!" Also applies to demeaning other cultures or
nationalities based on their differing cuisines, e.g., "I don't care what
they say, their breath always stinks of garlic. And have you ever smelled their
kitchens?" Olfactory Rhetoric
straddles the borderline between a fallacy and a psychopathology. See also,
Othering.
87. Oops! (also, "Oh, I
forgot...," "The Judicial Surprise," "The October
Surprise,"): A corrupt argument from logos in which toward the decisive
end of a discussion, debate or decision-making process an opponent suddenly,
elaborately and usually sarcastically shams having just remembered or uncovered
some salient fact, argument or evidence.
E.g., "Oops, I forgot to ask you:
You were convicted of this same offense twice before, weren't
you?!" Prohibited in judicial argument, this fallacy is only too common in
public discourse. Also applies to supposedly "discovering" and
sensationally reporting some potentially damning information or evidence and
then, after the damage has been done, quietly declaring at the last moment,
"Oops, I guess that really wasn't that significant after all. Sorry about that!"
88. Othering (also Otherizing,
"They're Not Like Us," Stereotyping, Xenophobia, Racism, Prejudice):
A badly corrupted, discriminatory argument from ethos where facts, arguments,
experiences or objections are arbitrarily disregarded, ignored or put down
without serious consideration because those involved "are not like
us," or "don't think like us." E.g., "It's OK for Mexicans
to earn a buck an hour in the maquiladoras [Mexico-based "Twin
Plants"]. If it happened here I'd call it brutal exploitation and daylight
robbery but south of the border, down Mexico way the economy is different and
they're not like us." Or, "You
claim that life must be really terrible over there for terrorists to ever think
of blowing themselves up with suicide vests just to make a point, but always
remember that they're different from us. They don't think about life and death
the same way we do." A vicious variety of the Ad Hominem Fallacy, most
often applied to non-white or non-Christian populations. A variation of this
fallacy is the "Speakee" Fallacy ("You speakee da English?";
also the Shibboleth), in which an opponent's arguments are mocked, ridiculed
and dismissed solely because of the speaker's alleged or real accent, dialect,
or lack of fluency in standard English, e.g., "He told me 'Vee vorkers
need to form a younion!' but I told him I'm not a 'vorker,' and to come back
when he learns to speak proper English." A very dangerous, extreme example
of Othering is Dehumanization, a fallacy of faulty analogy where opponents are
dismissed as mere cockroaches, lice, apes, monkeys, rats, weasels or
bloodsucking parasites who have no right to speak or to live at all, and
probably should be "squashed like bugs." This fallacy is ultimately
the "logic" behind ethnic cleansing, genocide and gas ovens. See also
the Identity Fallacy, "Name Calling" and "Olfactory
Rhetoric." The opposite of this fallacy is the "Pollyanna
Principle" below.
89. Overexplanation: A fallacy of logos
stemming from the paradox that beyond a certain point, more explanation,
instructions, data, discussion or proof inevitably results in less, not more,
understanding. Contemporary urban mythology holds that this fallacy is
typically male ("Mansplaining"), while barely half a century ago the
prevailing myth was that it was men who were naturally monosyllabic, grunting
or non-verbal while women would typically overexplain (e.g., the 1960 hit song
by Joe Jones, "You Talk Too Much"). "Mansplaining" is,
according to scholar Danelle Pecht, "the infuriating tendency of many men
to always have to be the smartest person in the room, regardless of the topic
of discussion and how much they actually know!" See also the "Plain Truth" fallacy.
90. Overgeneralization (also Hasty
Generalization; Totus pro Partes Fallacy; the Merological Fallacy): A fallacy
of logos where a broad generalization
that is agreed to be true is offered as overriding all particular cases,
particularly special cases requiring immediate attention. E.g., "Doctor,
you say that this time of year a flu
vaccination is essential. but I would counter that ALL vaccinations are
essential" (implying that I'm not going to give special attention to
getting the flu shot). Or, attempting to refute "Black Lives Matter"
by replying, 'All Lives Matter," the latter undeniably true but still a
fallacious overgeneralization in that specific and urgent context.
"Overgeneralization" also includes the the Pars pro Toto Fallacy, the
stupid but common fallacy of incorrectly applying one or two true examples to
all cases. E.g., a minority person who commits a particularly horrifying crime,
and whose example is then used to smear the reputation of the entire group, or
when a government publishes special lists of crimes committed by groups who are
supposed to be hated, e.g., Jews, or undocumented immigrants. Famously, the
case of Willie Horton was used in this manner in the 1988 election to smear
African Americans and by extension, Democratic presidential candidate Michael
Dukakis. See also the fallacy of "Zero Tolerance" below.
91. The Paralysis of Analysis (also,
Procrastination; the Nirvana Fallacy): A postmodern fallacy that since all data
is never in, any conclusion is always provisional, no legitimate decision can
ever be made and any action should always be delayed until forced by
circumstances. A corruption of the argument from logos. (See also "Law of
Unintended Consequences.")
92. The Passive Voice Fallacy (also, the
Bureaucratic Passive): A fallacy from ethos, concealing active human agency
behind the curtain of the grammatical passive voice, e.g., "It has been
decided that you will be let go," arrogating an ethos of cosmic
infallibility and inevitability to a very fallible conscious decision made by
identifiable, fallible and potentially culpable human beings.
93. Paternalism: A serious fallacy of
ethos, arbitrarily tut-tutting, dismissing or ignoring another's arguments or
concerns as "childish" or "immature;" taking a
condescending attitude of superiority toward opposing standpoints or toward
opponents themselves. E.g., "Your argument against the war is so
infantile. Try approaching the issue like an adult for a change," "I
don't argue with children," or "Somebody has to be the grownup in the
room, and it might as well be me. Here's why you're wrong..." Also refers to the sexist fallacy of
dismissing a woman's argument because she is a woman, e.g., "Oh, it must
be that time of the month, eh?" See also "Ad Hominem Argument"
and "Tone Policing."
94. The Plain Truth Fallacy; (also, the
Simple Truth fallacy, Salience Bias, the KISS Principle [Keep it Short and
Simple], the Monocausal Fallacy; the Executive Summary): A fallacy of logos
favoring familiar, singular, simplified or easily comprehensible data,
examples, explanations and evidence over those that are more complex and
unfamiliar but much closer to the truth. E.g., "Ooooh, look at all those
equations and formulas! Just boil it
down to the Simple Truth," or "I don't want your damned philosophy
lesson! Just tell me the Plain Truth
about why this is happening." A more
sophisticated version of this fallacy arbitrarily proposes, as did 18th century
Scottish rhetorician John Campbell, that the Truth is always simple by nature
and only malicious enemies of Truth
would ever seek to make it complicated. (See also, The Snow Job, and
Overexplanation.) The opposite of this is the postmodern fallacy of
Ineffability or Complexity (also, Truthiness; Post-Truth),, arbitrarily
declaring that today's world is so complex that there is no truth, or that
Truth (capital-T), if indeed such a thing exists, is unknowable except perhaps
by God or the Messiah and is thus forever inaccessible and irrelevant to us
mere mortals, making any cogent argument from logos impossible. See also the
Big Lie, and Paralysis of Analysis.
95. Plausible Deniability: A vicious fallacy of ethos under which
someone in power forces those under his or her control to do some questionable
or evil act and to then falsely assume or conceal responsibility for that act
in order to protect the ethos of the one in command. E.g., "Arrange a
fatal accident but make sure I know nothing about it!"
96. Playing on Emotion (also, the Sob
Story; the Pathetic Fallacy; the "Bleeding Heart" fallacy, the Drama
Queen / Drama King Fallacy): The classic fallacy of pure argument from pathos,
ignoring facts and evoking emotion alone. E.g., “If you don’t agree that
witchcraft is a major problem just shut up, close your eyes for a moment and
picture in your mind all those poor moms crying bitter tears for their innocent
tiny children whose cozy little beds and happy tricycles lie all cold and
abandoned, just because of those wicked old witches! Let's string’em all up!”
The opposite of this is the Apathetic Fallacy (also, Cynicism; Burnout;
Compassion Fatigue), where any and all legitimate arguments from pathos are
brushed aside because, as country music artist Jo Dee Messina sang (2005),
"My give-a-damn's busted."
97. Obverse to Playing on Emotion is the
ancient fallacy of Refinement ("Real Feelings"), where certain
classes of living beings such as plants and non-domesticated animals, infants,
babies and minor children, barbarians, slaves, deep-sea sailors, farmworkers,
criminals and convicts, refugees, addicts, terrorists, foreigners, the poor,
people of color, "Hillbillies," "Hobos," homeless people or
"the lower classes" in general are deemed incapable of experiencing
real pain like we do, or of having any "real feelings" at all, only
brutish appetites, vile lusts, evil drives, filthy cravings, biological
instincts and automatic tropisms. Noted rhetorician Kenneth Burke falls into
this last, behaviorist fallacy in his otherwise brilliant (1966) Language as
Symbolic Action, in his discussion of a bird trapped in a lecture room. See
also, Othering.
98. Political Correctness ("PC"):
A postmodern fallacy, a counterpart of the "Name Calling" fallacy,
supposing that the nature of a thing or situation can be changed by simply
changing its name. E.g., "Today we strike a blow for animal rights and
against cruelty to animals by changing the name of ‘pets’ to ‘animal companions.’"
Or "Never, ever play the 'victim' card, because it's manipulative and
sounds so negative, helpless and despairing. Instead of saying 'victims,' we
are proud to be 'survivors.'" (Of course, when "victims"
disappear then perpetrators conveniently vanish as well!) See also, The Scripted Message, below Also
applies to other forms of political
"Language Control," e.g., being careful never to refer to North Korea
or ISIS/ISIL by their rather pompous proper names ("the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea" and "the Islamic State,"
respectively) or to the Syrian government as the "Syrian government,"
(It's always the "Regime" or the "Dictatorship.").
Occasionally the fallacy of "Political Correctness" is falsely
confused with simple courtesy, e.g., "I'm sick and tired of the tyranny of
Political Correctness, having to watch my words all the time--I want to be free
to speak my mind and to call out a N----- or a Queer in public any time I damn
well feel like it!" See also, Non-recognition. An opposite of this fallacy
is the fallacy of Venting, below.
99. The Pollyanna Principle (also,
"The Projection Bias," "They're Just Like Us,"
"Singing 'Kumbaya.'"): A
traditional, often tragic fallacy of ethos, that of automatically (and falsely)
assuming that everyone else in any given place, time and circumstance had or
has basically the same (positive) wishes, desires, interests, concerns, ethics
and moral code as "we" do. This fallacy practically if not
theoretically denies both the reality of difference and the human capacity to
chose radical evil. E.g., arguing that
"The only thing most Nazi Storm Troopers wanted was the same thing we do,
to live in peace and prosperity and to have a good family life," when the reality
was radically otherwise. Dr. William Lorimer offers this explanation: "The
Projection Bias is the flip side of the 'They're Not Like Us' [Othering]
fallacy. The Projection bias (fallacy) is 'They're just people like me,
therefore they must be motivated by the same things that motivate me.' For example:
'I would never pull a gun and shoot a police officer unless I was convinced he
was trying to murder me; therefore, when Joe Smith shot a police officer, he
must have been in genuine fear for his life.' I see the same fallacy with
regard to Israel: 'The people of Gaza just want to be left in peace; therefore,
if Israel would just lift the blockade and allow Hamas to import anything they
want, without restriction, they would stop firing rockets at Israel.' That may
or may not be true - I personally don't believe it - but the argument clearly
presumes that the people of Gaza, or at least their leaders, are motivated by a
desire for peaceful co-existence." The Pollyanna Principle was gently but
expertly demolished in the classic twentieth-century American animated cartoon
series, "The Flintstones," in which the humor lay in the absurdity of
picturing "Stone Age" characters having the same concerns, values and
lifestyles as mid-twentieth century white working class Americans. This is the opposite of the Othering fallacy.
(Note: The Pollyanna Principle fallacy should not be confused with a
psychological principle of the same name which observes that positive memories
are usually retained more strongly than negative ones. )
100.
The
Positive Thinking Fallacy: An immensely popular but deluded modern fallacy
of logos, that because we are "thinking positively" that in itself
somehow biases external, objective reality in our favor even before we lift a
finger to act. See also, Magical Thinking. Note that this particular fallacy is
often part of a much wider closed-minded, sometimes cultish ideology where the
practitioner is warned against paying attention to to or even acknowledging the
existence of "negative" evidence or counter-arguments against his/her
standpoints. In the latter case rational discussion, argument or refutation is
most often futile. See also, Deliberate Ignorance.
101.
The
Post Hoc Argument: (also, "Post Hoc Propter Hoc;" "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc;"
"Too much of a coincidence," the "Clustering Illusion"):
The classic paranoiac fallacy of attributing an imaginary causality to random
coincidences, concluding that just because something happens close to, at the
same time as, or just after something else, the first thing is caused by the
second. E.g., "AIDS first emerged as a problem back in the very same era
when Disco music was becoming popular--that's too much of a coincidence: It
proves that Disco caused AIDS!"
Correlation does not equal causation.
102.
The
Pout (also The Silent Treatment; Nonviolent Civil Disobedience;
Noncooperation): An Argumentum ad Baculum that arbitrarily rejects or gives up
on dialogue before it is concluded. The most benign nonviolent form of this
fallacy is found in passive-aggressive tactics such as slowdowns, boycotts,
lockouts, sitdowns and strikes. Under
President Barack Obama the United States finally ended a half-century long
political Pout with Cuba. See also "No Discussion" and
"Nonrecognition."
103.
The
Procrustean Fallacy (also, "Standards," Standardization,
Uniformity, Fordism). The modernist
fallacy of falsely and inappropriately applying the norms and requirements of
standardized manufacturing. quality control and rigid scheduling, or of
military discipline to inherently diverse free human beings, their lives,
education, behavior, clothing and appearance. This fallacy often seems to stem
from the pathological need of someone in power to place in "order"
their disturbingly free, messy and disordered universe by restricting others'
freedom and insisting on standardization, alphabetization, discipline,
uniformity and "objective" assessment of everyone under their power.
This fallacy partially explains why marching in straight lines, mass
calisthenics, flag corps, standing at attention, uniforms, and standardized testing
are so typical of fascism, tyrannical regimes, and petty would-be tyrants
everywhere. Thanks to author Eimar O'Duffy for identifying this fallacy!
104.
Prosopology
(also, "Tell Me, What Were Their Names?"): A contemporary fallacy of
pathos, publicly reading out loud, singing, or inscribing at length a list of
names (most or all of which will be unknown to the reader or audience) to
underline the gravity of a past mass-casualty event. In some cases, those who
use this fallacy will defend it as an attempt to "personalize" an
otherwise anonymous mass tragedy. This fallacy was virtually unknown before
about 100 years ago, when the custom emerged of listing of the names of local
World War I casualties on community monuments around the country. That this is
indeed a fallacy is evident by the fact that the names on these century-old
monuments are now meaningful only to genealogists and specialized historians,
as the names on the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington or the names of those
who perished on 9/11 will surely be in another generation or two.
105.
The
Red Herring (also, Distraction): An irrelevant argument, attempting to
mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated but emotionally loaded issue.
E.g., "In regard to my several bankruptcies and recent indictment for
corruption let’s be straight up about what’s really important: Terrorism! Vote
for me and I'll fight those terrorists anywhere in the world!" Also applies to raising unrelated issues as
falsely opposing the issue at hand, e.g., "You say 'Black Lives Matter,'
but I would rather say 'Zika Matters!'" when the two contentions are in no
way opposed, only competing for attention. See also Availability Bias, and Dog
Whistle Politics.
106.
Reductio
ad Hitlerum (or, ad Hitleram): A highly problematic contemporary
historical-revisionist contention that the argument "That's just what
Hitler said (or would have said, or would have done)" is a fallacy, an
instance of the Ad Hominem argument and/or Guilt by Association. Whether the
Reductio ad Hitlerum can be considered an actual fallacy or not seems to
fundamentally depend on one's personal view of Hitler and the gravity of his
crimes.
107.
Reductionism:
(also, Oversimplifying, Sloganeering): The fallacy of deceiving an audience by
giving simple answers or bumper-sticker slogans in response to complex
questions, especially when appealing to less educated or unsophisticated
audiences. E.g., "If the glove doesn’t fit, you must vote to acquit."
Or, "Vote for Snith. He'll bring back jobs!" In science, technology,
engineering and mathematics ("STEM subjects") reductionism is
intentionally practiced to make intractable problems computable, e.g., the
well-known humorous suggestion, "First, let's assume the cow is a
sphere!". See also, the Plain Truth Fallacy, and Dog-whistle Politics.
108.
Reifying:
The fallacy of treating imaginary categories as actual, material
"things." (E.g., "The War against Terror is but part of the
eternal fight to the death between Freedom and Absolute Evil!") Sometimes
also referred to as "Essentializing" or “Hypostatization.”
109.
The
Romantic Rebel (also, the Truthdig / Truthout Fallacy; the Brave Heretic;
Conspiracy theories; the Iconoclastic Fallacy): The contemporary fallacy of
claiming Truth or validity for one's standpoint solely or primarily because one
is supposedly standing up heroically to the dominant "orthodoxy," the
current Standard Model, conventional wisdom or Political Correctness, or
whatever may be the Bandwagon of the moment; a corrupt argument from ethos.
E.g., "Back in the day the scientific establishment thought that the world
was flat, that was until Columbus proved them wrong! Now they want us to believe that ordinary
water is nothing but H2O. Are you going to believe them? The government is
frantically trying to suppress the truth that our public drinking-water supply
actually has nitrogen in it and causes congenital vampirism! And what about
Area 51? Don't you care? Or are you just a kiss-up for the corrupt corporate
Washington establishment?" The opposite of the Bandwagon fallacy.
110.
The
"Save the Children" Fallacy (also, Humanitarian Crisis): A cruel
and cynical contemporary media-driven fallacy of pathos, an instance of the
fallacious Appeal to Pity, attracting public support for intervention in
somebody else's crisis in a distant country by repeatedly showing in gross
detail the extreme (real) suffering of the innocent, defenseless little
children (occasionally extended even to their pets!) on "our" side,
conveniently ignoring the reality that innocent children on all sides usually
suffer the most in any war, conflict, famine or crisis. Recent (2017) examples
include the so-called "Rohingya" in Myanmar/Burma (ignoring multiple
other ethnicities suffering ongoing hunger and conflict in that impoverished
country), children in rebel-held areas of Syria (areas held by our rebels, not
by the Syrian government or by Islamic State rebels), and the children of
Mediterranean boat-people (light complected children from the Mideast,
Afghanistan and North Africa, but not darker, African-complected children from
sub-Saharan countries, children who are evidently deemed by the media to be far
less worthy of pity). Scholar Glen Greenwald points out that a cynical key part
of this tactic is hiding the child and adult victims of one's own violence
while "milking" the tragic, blood-soaked images of children killed by
the "other side" for every tear they can generate as a causus belli
[a puffed-up excuse for war, conflict or intervention].
111.
Scapegoating
(also, Blamecasting): The ancient fallacy that whenever something goes wrong
there's always someone other than oneself to blame. Although sometimes this
fallacy is a practical denial of randomness or chance itself, today it is more
often a mere insurance-driven business decision ("I don't care if it was
an accident! Somebody with deep pockets is gonna pay for this!"), though
often scapegoating is no more than a cynical ploy to shield those truly
responsible from blame. The term "Scapegoating" is also used to refer
to the tactic of casting collective blame on marginalized or scorned "Others,"
e.g., "The Jews are to blame!" A particularly corrupt and cynical
example of scapegoating is the fallacy of Blaming the Victim, in which one
falsely casts the blame for one's own evil or questionable actions on those
affected, e.g., "If you move an eyelash I'll have to kill you and you'll
be to blame!" or "You bi**h, you dressed immodestly and made me rape
you! Then you went and snitched on me to the cops and let them collect a rape
kit, and now I'm going to prison and every bit of it is your fault!" See
also, the Affective Fallacy.
112.
Scare
Tactics (also Appeal to Fear; Paranoia; the Bogeyman Fallacy; Shock
Doctrine [ShockDoc]): A variety of Playing on Emotions, a corrupted argument
from pathos: Taking advantage of a emergent or deliberately-created crisis and
its associated public shock, panic and chaos in order to impose an argument,
action or solution that would be clearly unacceptable if carefully considered.
E.g., "If you don't shut up and do what I say we're all gonna die! In this
moment of crisis we can't afford the luxury of criticizing or trying to
second-guess my decisions when our very lives and freedom are in peril! Instead, we need to be united as one!"
Or, in the (2017) words of former White House Spokesperson Sean Spicer,
"This is about the safety of America!" This fallacy is discussed at
length in Naomi Klein's (2010) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster
Capitalism and her (2017) No is Not Enough: Resisting Trump's Shock Politics
and Winning the World We Need. See also, The Shopping Hungry Fallacy,
Dog-Whistle Politics, "We Have to do Something!", and The Worst Case
Fallacy.
113.
The
Scripted Message (also, Talking Points):
A contemporary fallacy related to Big Lie Technique, where a politician
or public figure strictly limits her/his statements on a given issue to
carefully scripted phrases developed to achieve maximum acceptance or maximum
desired reaction from a target audience. See also, Dog Whistle Politics, and
Political Correctness, above.
114.
Sending
the Wrong Message: A dangerous fallacy of logos that attacks a given
statement, argument or action, no matter how good, true or necessary, because
it will "send the wrong message." In effect, those who use this
fallacy are openly confessing to fraud and admitting that the truth will destroy
the fragile web of illusion that has been created by their lies. E.g.,
"Actually, we haven't a clue about how to deal with this crisis, but if we
publicly admit it we'll be sending the wrong message." See also,
"Mala Fides."
115.
Shifting
the Burden of Proof: A classic
fallacy of logos that challenges an opponent to disprove a claim rather than
asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g.,
"These days space-aliens are everywhere among us, masquerading as true
humans, even right here on campus! I dare you to prove it isn't so! See? You can't! You admit it! That means what I
say has to be true. Most probably, you're one of them, since you're so soft on
space-aliens!" A typical tactic in using this fallacy is to get an
opponent to admit that a far-fetched claim, or some fact related to it, is
indeed theoretically "possible," and then declare the claim
"proven" absent evidence to the contrary. E.g., "So you admit
that massive undetected voter fraud is indeed possible under our current system,
and could have happened in this country at least in theory, and you can't
produce even the tiniest scintilla of evidence that it didn't actually happen!
Ha-ha! I rest my case." See also, Argument from Ignorance.
116.
The
Shopping Hungry Fallacy: A fallacy of pathos, a variety of Playing on
Emotions and sometime Scare Tactics, making stupid but important decisions (or
being prompted, manipulated or forced to "freely" take public or
private decisions that may be later regretted but are difficult to reverse)
"in the heat of the moment" when under the influence of strong
emotion (hunger, fear, lust, anger, sadness, regret, fatigue, even joy, love or
happiness). E.g., Trevor Noah, current (2016) host of the Daily Show on
American television attributes public approval of draconian measures in the
Patriot Act and the creation of the U. S. Department of Homeland Security to
America's "shopping hungry" immediately after 9/11. See also, Scare
Tactics; "We Have to Do Something;" and The Big "But"
Fallacy.
117.
The
Silent Majority Fallacy: A variety of the argument from ignorance, this
fallacy, famously enunciated by disgraced American President Richard Nixon,
alleges special knowledge of a hidden "silent majority" of voters (or
of the population in general) that stands in support of an otherwise unpopular
leader and his/her policies, contrary to the repeated findings of polls,
surveys and popular vote totals. In an extreme case the leader arrogates to
him/herself the title of the "voice of the voiceless."
118.
The
Simpleton's Fallacy: (Or, The
"Good Simpleton" Fallacy): A corrupt fallacy of logos, described in
an undated quote from science writer Isaac Asimov as "The false notion
that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your
knowledge.'" The name of this fallacy is borrowed from Walter M. Miller
Jr.'s classic (1960) post-apocalyptic novel, A Canticle for Leibowitz, in which
in the centuries after a nuclear holocaust knowledge and learning become so
despised that "Good Simpleton" becomes the standard form of
interpersonal salutation. This fallacy is alleged to have had a great deal to
do with the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. See also "Just
Plain Folks," and the "Plain Truth Fallacy." U.S. President
Barrack Obama noted to the contrary (2016), "In politics and in life,
ignorance is not a virtue. It's not cool to not know what you're talking about.
That's not real or telling it like it is. That's not challenging political
correctness. That's just not knowing what you're talking about." The name
"Simpleton's Fallacy" has also been used to refer to a deceptive
technique of argumentation, feigning ignorance in order to get one's opponent
to admit to, explain or overexplain something s/he would rather not discuss.
E.g., "I see here that you have a prior conviction for 'Criminal Sodomy.'
I may be a poor, naive simpleton but I'm not quite sure what that fine and
fancy lawyer-talk means in plain English.
Please explain to the jury in simple terms what exactly you did that got you convicted of this crime."
See also, Argument from Ignorance, and The Third Person Effect.
119.
The
Slippery Slope (also, the Domino Theory): The common fallacy that "one
thing inevitably leads to another." E.g., "If you two go and drink
coffee together one thing will lead to another and next thing you know you'll
be pregnant and end up spending your life on welfare living in the
Projects," or "If we close Gitmo one thing will lead to another and
before you know it armed terrorists will be strolling through our church doors
with suicide belts proud as you please during the 10:30 a.m. Sunday worship
service right here in Garfield, Kansas!"
120.
The
Snow Job (also Falacia ad Verbosium; Information Bias): A fallacy of logos,
“proving” a claim by overwhelming an audience ("snowing them under") with
mountains of true but marginally-relevant
documents, graphs, words, facts, numbers, information and statistics
that look extremely impressive but which the intended audience cannot be
expected to understand or properly evaluate. This is a corrupted argument from
logos. See also, "Lying with Statistics."The opposite of this fallacy
is the Plain Truth Fallacy.
121.
The
Soldiers' Honor Fallacy: The ancient fallacy that all who wore a uniform,
fought hard and followed orders are worthy of some special honor or glory or
are even "heroes," whether they fought for freedom or fought to
defend slavery, marched under Grant or Lee, Hitler, Stalin, Eisenhower or
McArthur, fought to defend their homes, fought for oil or to spread empire, or
even fought against and killed U.S. soldiers!. A corrupt argument from ethos
(that of a soldier), closely related to the "Finish the Job" fallacy
("Sure, he died for a lie, but he deserves honor because he followed
orders and did his job to the end!"). See also "Heroes All."
This fallacy was recognized and decisively refuted at the Nuremburg Trials
after World War II but remains powerful to this day nonetheless. See also
"Blind Loyalty." Related is the State Actor Fallacy, that those who
fight and die for their country (America, Russia, Iran, the Third Reich, etc.)
are worthy of honor or at least pardonable while those who fight for a
non-state actor (armed abolitionists, guerrillas, freedom-fighters, jihadis,
mujahideen) are not and remain "terrorists" no matter how noble or
vile their cause, until or unless they are adopted by a state after the fact.
122.
The
Standard Version Fallacy: The
ancient fallacy, a discursive Argumentum ad Baculum, of choosing a
"Standard Translation" or "Authorized Version" of an ancient or sacred text and arbitrarily
declaring it "correct" and "authoritative," necessarily
eliminating much of the poetry and underlying meaning of the original but
conveniently quashing any further discussion about the meaning of the original
text, e.g., the Vulgate or The King James Version. The easily demonstrable fact
that translation (beyond three or four words) is neither uniform nor reversible
(i.e., never comes back exactly the same when retranslated from another
language) gives the lie to any efforts to make translation of human languages
into an exact science. Islam clearly recognizes this fallacy when
characterizing any attempt to translate the sacred text of the Holy Qur'an out
of the original Arabic as a "paraphrase" at very best. An obverse of
this fallacy is the Argumentum ad Mysteriam, above. An extension of the Standard Version Fallacy
is the Monolingual Fallacy, at an academic level the fallacy of ignorantly
assuming (as a monolingual person) that transparent, in-depth translation
between languages is the norm, or even possible at all, allowing one to
conveniently and falsely disregard and ignore everyday issues of translation
when close-reading translated literature or academic text and theory. At the
popular level the Monolingual Fallacy allows monolinguals to blithely demand
that visitors, migrants, refugees and newcomers learn English, either before
arriving or else overnight after arrival in the United States, while applying
no such demand to themselves when they go to Asia, Europe, Latin America, or
even French-speaking areas of Canada. Not rarely, this fallacy descends into
gross racism or ethnic discrimination, e.g., the demagogy of warning of
"Spanish being spoken right here on Main Street and taco trucks on every
corner!" See also, Othering, and Dog-Whistle Politics.
123.
Star
Power (also Testimonial, Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of Authority,
Falacia ad Vericundiam; Eminence-based Practice): In academia, a corrupt
argument from ethos in which arguments, standpoints and themes of academic
discourse are granted fame and validity or condemned to obscurity solely by
whoever may be the reigning "stars" or "premier journals"
of the discipline at the moment. E.g., "Foster's take on Network Theory
has been thoroughly criticized and is so last-week!.This week everyone's into
Safe Spaces and Pierce's Theory of Microaggressions. Get with the
program." (See also, the Bandwagon.) Also applies to an obsession with
journal Impact Factors. At the popular level this fallacy also refers to a
corrupt argument from ethos in which public support for a standpoint or product
is established by a well-known or respected figure (i.e.,. a star athlete or
entertainer) who is not an expert and who may have been well paid to make the
endorsement (e.g., “Olympic gold-medal pole-vaulter Fulano de Tal uses Quick
Flush Internet--Shouldn’t you?" Or, "My favorite rock star warns that
vaccinations spread cooties, so I'm not vaccinating my kids!" ). Includes
other false, meaningless or paid means of associating oneself or one’s product
or standpoint with the ethos of a famous person or event (e.g., “Try Salsa
Cabria, the official taco sauce of the Winter Olympics!”). This fallacy also
covers Faulty use of Quotes (also, The Devil Quotes Scripture), including
quoting out of context or against the clear intent of the original speaker or
author. E.g., racists quoting and
twisting the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s statements in favor of racial
equality against contemporary activists and movements in favor of racial
equality.
124.
The
Straw Man (also "The Straw Person" ""The Straw
Figure"): The fallacy of setting up a phony, weak, extreme or ridiculous
parody of an opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down or reduce
it to absurdity with a rhetorical wave of the hand. E.g., "Vegetarians say
animals have feelings like you and me. Ever seen a cow laugh at a Shakespeare
comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!" Or, "Pro-choicers hate
babies!" Or, "Pro-lifers hate women and want them to spend their lives
barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove!" A too-common example of this fallacy is that
of highlighting the most absurd, offensive, silly or violent examples in a mass
movement or demonstration, e.g. "Tree huggers" for environmentalists,
"bra burners" for feminists, or "rioters" when there are a
dozen violent crazies in a peaceful demonstration of thousands or tens of
thousands, and then portraying these extreme examples as typical of the entire
movement in order to condemn it with a wave of the hand. See also Olfactory
Rhetoric.
125.
The
Taboo (also, Dogmatism):: The ancient fallacy of unilaterally declaring
certain "bedrock" arguments, assumptions, dogmas, standpoints or
actions "sacrosanct" and not open to discussion, or arbitrarily
taking some emotional tones, logical standpoints, doctrines or options
"off the table" beforehand. (E.g., " "No, let's not discuss
my sexuality," "Don't bring my drinking into this," or
"Before we start, you need to know I won't allow you to play the race card
or permit you to attack my arguments by claiming 'That's just what Hitler would
say!'") Also applies to discounting
or rejecting certain arguments, facts and evidence (or even experiences!) out
of hand because they are supposedly "against the Bible" or other
sacred dogma (See also the A Priori Argument). This fallacy occasionally
degenerates into a separate, distracting argument over who gets to define the
parameters, tones, dogmas and taboos of the main argument, though at this point
reasoned discourse most often breaks down and the entire affair becomes a naked
Argumentum ad Baculum. See also, MYOB, Tone Policing, and Calling
"Cards."
126.
They're
All Crooks: The contemporary fallacy of refusing to get involved in public
politics because all politicians and politics are allegedly corrupt, ignoring
the fact that if this is so in a democratic country it is precisely because
"decent" people like you and I refuse to get involved, leaving the
field open to the "crooks" by default. An example of Circular
Reasoning.
127.
The
"Third Person Effect" (also, "Wise up!" and
"They're All Liars"): An
example of the fallacy of Deliberate Ignorance, the arch-cynical postmodern
fallacy of deliberately discounting or ignoring media information a priori, opting
to remain in ignorance rather than "listening to the lies" of the
mainstream media, the President, the "medical establishment,"
professionals, professors, doctors and the "academic elite" or other
authorities or information sources, even about urgent subjects (e.g., the need
for vaccinations) on which these sources are otherwise publicly considered to
be generally reliable or relatively trustworthy. According to Drexel University
researchers (2017), the "Third Person Effect ... suggests that individuals
will perceive a mass media message to have more influence on others, than
themselves. This perception tends to counteract the message's intended
'call-to-action.' Basically, this suggests that over time people wised up to
the fact that some mass media messages were intended to manipulate them -- so
the messages became less and less effective." This fallacy seems to be
opposite to and an overreaction to the Big Lie Technique. See also, Deliberate
Ignorance.
128.
The
"Thousand Flowers" Fallacy (also, "Take names and kick
butt."): A sophisticated, modern "Argumentum ad Baculum" in
which free and open discussion and "brainstorming" are temporarily
allowed and encouraged (even demanded) within an organization or country not in
order to hear and consider opposing views, but rather to "smoke out,"
identify and later punish, fire or liquidate dissenters or those not following
the Party Line. The name comes from the Thousand Flowers Period in Chinese
history when Communist leader Chairman Mao Tse Tung applied this policy with
deadly effect.
129.
Throwing
Good Money After Bad (also, "Sunk Cost Fallacy"): In his
excellent book, Logically Fallacious (2015), Author Bo Bennett describes this
fallacy as follows: "Reasoning that further investment is warranted on the
fact that the resources already invested will be lost otherwise, not taking
into consideration the overall losses involved in the further
investment." In other words,
risking additional money to "save" an earlier, losing investment,
ignoring the old axiom that "Doing the same thing and expecting different
results is the definition of insanity."
E.g., "I can't stop betting now, because I already bet the rent and
lost, and I need to win it back or my wife will kill me when I get home!"
See also Argument from Inertia.
130.
TINA
(There Is No Alternative. Also the "Love it or Leave It" Fallacy;
"Get over it," "Suck it up," "It is what it is,"
"Actions/Elections have consequences," or the "Fait
Accompli"): A very common contemporary extension of the either/or fallacy
in which someone in power quashes critical thought by announcing that there is
no realistic alternative to a given standpoint, status or action, arbitrarily
ruling any and all other options out of bounds, or announcing that a decision
has been made and any further discussion is insubordination, disloyalty,
treason, disobedience or simply a waste of precious time when there's a job to
be done. (See also, "Taboo;" "Finish the Job.") TINA is most often a naked power-play, a
slightly more sophisticated variety of the Argumentum ad Baculum. See also Appeal to Closure.
131.
Tone
Policing. A corrupt argument from pathos and delivery, the fallacy of
judging the validity of an argument primarily by its emotional tone of
delivery, ignoring the reality that a valid fact or argument remains valid
whether it is offered calmly and deliberatively or is shouted in a
"shrill" or even "hysterical" tone, whether carefully
written and published in professional, academic language in a respected,
peer-reviewed journal or screamed through a bull-horn and peppered with
vulgarity. Conversely, a highly urgent emotional matter is still urgent even if
argued coldly and rationally. This
fallacy creates a false dichotomy between reason and emotion and thus
implicitly favors those who are not personally involved or emotionally invested
in an argument, e.g., "I know you're upset, but I won't discuss it with
you until you calm down," or "I'd believe what you wrote were it not
for your adolescent overuse of exclamation points throughout the text." Or
alternately, "You seem to be taking the death of your spouse way too
calmly. You're under arrest for homicide. You have the right to remain
silent..." Tone Policing is frequent in contemporary discourse of power,
particularly in response to discourse of protest, and is occasionally used in
sexist ways, e.g. the accusation of being "shrill" is almost always
used against women, never against men. See also, The F-Bomb.
132.
Transfer:
(also, Name Dropping) A corrupt argument from ethos, falsely associating a
famous or respected person, place or thing with an unrelated standpoint (e.g.
putting a picture of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on an advertisement
for mattresses, using Genghis Khan, a Mongol who hated Chinese, as the name of
a Chinese restaurant, or using the Texas flag to sell cars or pickups that were
made in Detroit, Kansas City or Korea). This fallacy is common in contemporary
academia in the form of using a profusion of scholarly-looking citations from
respected authorities to lend a false gravitas to otherwise specious ideas or
text. See also "Star Power."
133.
Tu
Quoque ("You Do it Too!"; also, Two Wrongs Make a Right): A
corrupt argument from ethos, the fallacy of defending a shaky or false
standpoint or excusing one's own bad action by pointing out that one's
opponent's acts, ideology or personal character are also open to question, or
are perhaps even worse than one's own. E.g., "Sure, we may have tortured
prisoners and killed kids with drones, but we don't cut off heads like they
do!" Or, "You can't stand there and accuse me of corruption! You guys
are all into politics and you know what we have to do to get
reelected!" Unusual,
self-deprecating variants on this fallacy are the Ego / Nos Quoque fallacies
("I / we do it too!"), minimizing or defending another's evil actions
because I am / we are guilty of the same thing
or even worse. E.g., In response to allegations that Russian Premier Vladimir Putin is a
"killer," American President Donald Trump (2/2017) told an
interviewer, "There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers.
What, do you think our country's so innocent?" This fallacy is related to the Red Herring
and to the Ad Hominem Argument.
134.
Two
Truths (also, Compartmentalization; Epistemically Closed Systems;
Alternative Truth): A very corrupt and dangerous fallacy of logos and ethos,
first formally described in medieval times but still common today, holding that
there exists one "truth" in one given environment (e.g., in science,
work or school) and simultaneously a different, formally contradictory but
equally true "truth" in a different epistemic system, context,
environment, intended audience or discourse community (e.g., in one's religion
or at home). This can lead to a situation of stable cognitive dissonance where,
as UC Irvine scholar Dr. Carter T. Butts describes it (2016), "I know but
don't believe," making rational discussion difficult, painful or
impossible. This fallacy also describes the discourse of politicians who
cynically proclaim one "truth" as mere "campaign rhetoric"
used "to mobilize the base," or "for domestic consumption
only," and a quite different and contradictory "truth" for more
general or practical purposes once in office.
See also Disciplinary Blinders; Alternative Truth.
135.
Venting
(also, Letting off Steam; Loose Lips): In the Venting fallacy a person argues
that her/his words are or ought to be exempt from criticism or consequence
because s/he was "only venting," even though this very admission
implies that the one "venting" was, at long last, freely expressing
his/her true, heartfelt and uncensored opinion about the matter in question.
This same fallacy applies to minimizing, denying the significance of or
excusing other forms of frank, unguarded or uninhibited offensive expression as
mere "Locker-room Talk," "Alpha-male Speech" or nothing but
cute, adorable "Bad-boy Talk." See also, the Affective Fallacy. This
fallacy is an opposite to the fallacy of Political Correctness, above.
136.
We
Have to Do Something: (also, the
Placebo Effect; Political Theater; Security Theater; We have to send a
message): The dangerous contemporary fallacy that when "People are scared
/ People are angry / People are fed up / People are hurting / People want
change" it becomes necessary to do something, anything, at once without
stopping to ask "What?" or "Why?", even if what is done is
an overreaction, is a completely ineffective sham, an inert placebo, or
actually makes the situation worse, rather than "just sitting there doing
nothing." (E.g., "Banning air passengers from carrying ham sandwiches
onto the plane and making parents take off their newborn infants' tiny pink
baby-shoes probably does nothing to deter potential terrorists, but people are
scared and we have to do something to respond to this crisis!") This is a
badly corrupted argument from pathos. (See also "Scare Tactic" and "The
Big 'But' Fallacy.")
137.
Where
there’s Smoke, there’s Fire (also Hasty Conclusion; Jumping to a
Conclusion): The dangerous fallacy of ignorantly drawing a snap conclusion
and/or taking action without sufficient evidence. E.g., “Captain! The guy
sitting next to me in coach has a dark skin and is reading a book in some kind
of funny language all full of weird squiggles above the "N's" and
upside-down question marks. It must be Arabic! Get him off the plane before he
blows us all to kingdom come!” A variety of the “Just in Case” fallacy. The
opposite of this fallacy is the "Paralysis of Analysis."
138.
The
Wisdom of the Crowd (also, The Magic of the Market; the Wikipedia Fallacy):
A very common contemporary fallacy that individuals may be wrong but "the
crowd" or "the market" is infallible, ignoring historic examples
like witch-burning, lynching, and the market crash of 2008. This fallacy is why
most colleges and universities ban students from using Wikipedia as a serious
reference source.
139.
The
Worst-Case Fallacy (also, "Just in case;" "We can't afford
to take chances;" "An abundance of caution;" "Better Safe
than Sorry;" "Better to prevent than to lament."): A pessimistic
fallacy by which one’s reasoning is based on an improbable, far-fetched or even
completely imaginary worst-case scenario rather than on reality. This plays on
pathos (fear) rather than reason, and is often politically motivated. E.g.,
"What if armed terrorists were to attack your county grain elevator
tomorrow morning at dawn? Are you ready to fight back? Better stock up on assault rifles and
ammunition today, just in case!"
See also Scare Tactics. The opposite of this is the Positive Thinking
Fallacy.
140.
The
Worst Negates the Bad (also, Be Grateful for What You've Got): The
extremely common modern logical fallacy that an objectively bad situation
somehow isn't so bad simply because it could have been far worse, or because
someone, somewhere has it even worse. E.g., "I cried because I had no
shoes, until I saw someone who had no feet." Or, "You're protesting
because you earn only $7.25 an hour? You could just as easily be out on the
street! I happen to know there are people in Uttar Pradesh who are doing the
very same work you're doing for one tenth of what you're making, and they're
pathetically glad just to have work at all.
You need to shut up, put down that picket sign, get back to work for
what I care to pay you, and thank me
each and every day for giving you a job!"
141. Zero Tolerance (also, Zero Risk Bias,
Broken Windows Policing, Disproportionate Response; Even One is Too Many;
Exemplary Punishment; Judenrein): The contemporary fallacy of declaring an
"emergency" and promising to disregard justice and due process and devote
unlimited resources (and occasionally, unlimited cruelty) to stamp out a
limited, insignificant or even nonexistent problem. E.g., "I just read
about an actual case of cannibalism somewhere in this country. That's
disgusting, and even one case is way, way too many! We need a Federal Taskforce
against Cannibalism with a million-dollar budget and offices in every state, a
national SCAN program in all the grade schools (Stop Cannibalism in America
Now!), and an automatic double death penalty for cannibals; in other words,
zero tolerance for cannibalism in this country!" This is a corrupt and
cynical argument from pathos, almost always politically driven, a particularly
sinister variety of Dog Whistle Politics and the "We Have to do Something"
fallacy. See also, "Playing on Emotions," "Red Herring,"
and also the "Big Lie Technique."