Talk:List of fallacies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cleanup

This list is a mess in need of close attention. dlainhart (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, so get to work.--I Use Dial (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for new fallacies

Hey all. I've divided this discussion page into comments where people suggest new fallacies for the list, or ask what a certain fallacy is called, and others. I though it would make it much more overviewable. Hope you find it useful. --Mithcoriel (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This strikes me as a forum for original research.

dlainhart (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Modal fallacy

This is a fallacy based on the idea that if you state "if x then y" as a necessary truth, then you cannot state y as a necessary truth, since it is based on x's contingency. Let me give an example.

1. There are 5 fingers on my hand (this is a contingent truth; if one of my fingers were severed off yesterday, it wouldn't be true) 2. it is necessarily true that 5 fingers is more than 4 fingers (in number of fingers) (this is a necessary truth) 3. therefore, it is necessarily true that there are more than 4 fingers on my hand. (this is stating the latter half of 2. as a necessary truth, dismissing the fact that it was based on a contingency.)

This fallacy has been used to invalidate very strong philosophical movements such as "fatalism," and therefore should be noted on the page. -Amir 160.39.110.137 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Everyone's entitled to their opinion"?

This is a logical fallacy (nobody is entitled to an opinion which they're not competent to hold, e.g. how to proceed with delicate brain surgery (if they're not surgically qualified), and, by law in many countries, nobody is entitled to a false and damaging opinion, the expression of which is slander or libel according to how it is done); but what is the name and exact nature of this fallacy? 193.122.47.170 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody is entitled to an opinion which they're not competent to hold" is also a "logical fallacy" by your logic, whatever it might be. This is a glaring example of a non-sequitur; in fact, all of your statements are.

Please. This is not a logical fallacy; this is philosophy. There's a lot more to a discussion about "everyone is entitled to their opinion" than pure logic and logical form. And how is this anything more than an unjustified argument anyway? The fallacious logic would be in the justification. If you're going to be hanging around this topic, you should have more discipline.

There seems to be a lot of "pollution" on this list. This article is in need of a careful review.

dlainhart (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question! (sorry, i don't know the answer) Javaman59 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an Appeal to Emotion or maybe Wishful Thinking. The premise is assumed that everyone's opinion is equally-valid and therefore equal. To me, it sounds like something people _want_ to believe, even if it wasn't true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.209.144.224 (talk) 13:30, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Everyone IS entitled to their opinion. It's just that they're often wrong. :P --92.20.201.84 (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cat Tail's Fallacy

I'm not sure what kind of fallacy this is:

A cat has a tail more than no cat No cat has two tails Therefore, a cat has three tails.

In this fallacy "no cat" is treated like a variable, maiking:
x=(x-x)+1
x=/=2
Into:
x=y+1
y=2
x=3

Equivocation -- of "no cat." Gregbard 05:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Following the article, that appears to be a general example of a verbal fallacy. Specifically, one of equivocation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.209.144.224 (talk) 13:23, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Constructivist fallacy

I don't see the constructivist fallacy listed anywhere, either on your formal or informal lists. I don't know about the formal logic of fallacies, but if Wikipedia is an attempt to be encyclopedic, this fallacy definitely deserves a mention. F. A Hayek, who by any measure was a very significant social theorist in the 20th century, identified this fallacy explicitly. Perhaps the best and most direct approach to it is in vol. 1 of his Law, Legislation and Liberty : Rules and Order, published in 1973. Most of chapter one (Reason and Evolution) is his argument that rational constructivism is provably false. He mentions the term "constructivist fallacy" on pp 24-25, among others. I don't have time to fix the Wikipedia article, but did want to note it for any editor (of fallacy scholar) to add in when the time is right. It really is a fallacy that should be mentioned in a list of this type. N2e 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling something a "fallacy" does not make it a logical fallacy worthy of mention on this list. If you don't understand formal logic at all, you should brush up on it before you suggest these things.

dlainhart (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This fallacy is described in Hayek's book (searchable on google) as a disagreement with utilitarianism as a legal base as opposed to the proposition that this is a logical fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.233.198 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed world assumption

I have just found the article Closed world assumption, and this list seems not to have a link to it. Someone qualiified can add a statement with a link to it in the correct section. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be somewhat hesitant to classify it as a fallacy since, as a general presumption, it's not inherently fallacious. One could say that a closed world assumption is valid in such and such a context, if enough information is known (all nodes in a system are identified or what not) to justify that assumption.

Perhaps we could include it but list it as "Closed world fallacy"? I know it's not a term of art, but I think it may be slightly more proper -- an implicit qualification of sorts.

And perhaps it could go under argument from ignorance? I think it fits nicely as a child thereof. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Argument from illusion

I have just found the article Argument from illusion, and this list seems not to have a link to it. Someone qualiified can add a statement with a link to it in the correct section. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The argument from illusion is not a fallacy. It's a position in the philosophy of perception. Djk3 (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added Argument from illusion as an internal link on the article Philosophy of perception. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What's this fallacy called?

I'm sure there are still many fallacies that don't have names yet. So let's list them if we come across one, so others can either point us to the right article, or we can give it a new name. A fundamentalist just said to me: "Why not try my religion? Are you scared?" I think the motive of calling someone scared for disagreeing with you pops up a lot. Does this fallacy have a name yet? --Mithcoriel (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, let's see. If I had to choose a name for it, I'd call it "appeal to pride". And come to think of it, it's not much different from teenagers daring their friends to do crazy things on the basis of "are you afraid"? Hm, does that still count as a fallacy? --Mithcoriel (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. There's no fallacious logic here. You're simply labeling things you dislike "fallacies" with no justification. This list isn't for giving catchy putdown names to arguments you disagree with. If there's anything going on, you're making a strawman of arguments for religious belief. Also see WP:NOR.

dlainhart (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think you're being a bit harsh here. It's not like I merely disagree with the argument, it's that it's very obviously erroneous, but I guess it doesn't happen to technically be a fallacy.

I mean, it seems pretty obvious that fear is not the motive that makes one not follow a religion, but personal preference, belief, etc. The assertion is completely unrelated. Sort of like asking: "Why don't you want to go hiking? Is it because you hate chocolate?" After reading this list of fallacies, and not remembering each one by name and detail, I have this feeling this might be the kind of quote that would fit somewhere here, though I can't quite place it. Though non sequitur comes to my mind too.

I'm asking out of intellectual curiousity, not because I'm venting anger over being disagreed with or something. --Mithcoriel (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

These quotes are very POV-biased assertions that are bound to attract flak and start arguments over their validity. There is, quite simply, no place for real-world controversies in encyclopedic discussion of logical fallacies. Plus, "are you afraid?" isn't even attempting to be a logical appeal! It is very obviously no more than rhetoric. The fallacious logic at work is already listed: Appeal to emotion. There is no need for a cute, argument-specific name.

Your discussion of "...it seems pretty obvious that fear is not the motive..." is entirely out of place in an article about logic. You're conflating the study of logic and philosophy with its application in informal real-world situations, and that's where I find fault in your approach to editing this article. Once again, this is just another red-herring appeal to emotion, and there is no point discussing this any further at all in this context.

If nothing else, remember that "calling someone scared for disagreeing with you" is a rhetorical tactic of persuasion and isn't even relevant to the discipline of which this article is most concerned. Inventing names as a rhetorical handgrenade to lob back is a disservice to the study of philosophy, the study of formal logic, and the aim of this encyclopedia and article. And with that in mind, I should point out that this discussion has long ceased to be about the article itself, and is becoming dangerously frivolous. Steering this discussion back to the article itself, WP:NOR.

--dlainhart (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there you go then, my question is answered: It's an appeal to emotions.

I don't know why you act like I wanted to invent a new word, and that I wanted to do so for personal motives, when all I wanted was just the name of the fallacy if it had one already, or an explanation for what it is if not a fallacy (rhetorical tactic). Also, I'm not trying to bring real-world controversies in, those were just simple examples. If this had, in fact, been shown to be a genuine fallacy, we'd have looked for an example that's not too controversial.

I do think, however, that if we ever come across a genuine fallacy that is really still unnamed, it should be coined. Just like a new species that is discovered should be named. Of course we shouldn't give fantasy-names to existing species/fallacies or to things which are not really species/fallacies, but you get the idea.

Anyway, I have another possible fallacy I'd like to know the name of. Wait, lemme post it without indents, below: --Mithcoriel (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What fallacy is this quote here? "I just found a sand grain, and the chances of it lying exactly where it was, of all the places it could have been, are one in a trillion! This is proof it couldn't have been there by coincidence!" In other words, analysing the statistical likelyness of something after it happened. I would guess Texan Sharpshooter fallacy: you could make that claim no matter where the sand grain was found. Possibly also tautology. What do you guys think? --Mithcoriel (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

altered wording(won to made)

i have altered the wording of some of the descriptions. saying that an arguement is "arguement won by", simply contradicts the concept of logical fallacies. changing them to say "arguement made by" seems a little more inline with the concepts of logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.33.214 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"subtle" religious fallacies

In Aristotelian fallacies -> Material fallacies

This fallacy has been illustrated by ethical or theological arguments wherein the fear of punishment is subtly substituted for abstract right as the sanction of moral obligation.

1. Here, "subtly" is a pejorative word, implying deliberate deceipt. I'm deleteing it.

2. Please give a referenced example of your case.

3. My own knowledge of ethical and religous arguments which use fear of punishment is that they use fear of punishment as one reason. among others, for the conclusion. However, I'm not arguing this in the article. Someone has made the contrary assertion in the article (ie. that ethical or religious arguments for moral obligation do substiture fear of punishment for abstract right), so please provide evidence.

202.20.20.129 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No answer? I've deleted it.

Javaman59 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Format

Would this not be better suited to being a category, rather than a list? 88.108.191.83 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

History of specific fallacies

Would it be at all helpful to the topic of fallacies to mention a brief history of when specific fallacies were identified ? For instance Reductio ad Hitlerum would obviously have been identified after, say, Ignoratio elenchi, which were mentioned by Aristotle. Presumably what could be identified would be when the term itself was but into use, as well as how far back examples of certain fallacies were recognised as logically invalid, even if not identified by there modern name.74.67.115.198 23:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fallacies list is horrible.

Example 1: Material Fallacy James argues: Cheese is food. Food is delicious. Therefore, cheese is delicious.

This is NOT a fallacy. If cheese is X and X is Y then Cheese is Y. Let me restate this "fallacy" with the definition of the word "food" as a substitute.

Cheese is an edible substance which is used to provide organisms with energy. Edible substances which are used to provide organisms with energy are delicious. Therefore Cheese is delicious. Am I wrong? 86.62.250.3 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

   its not true , because cheese is a sub category of food
   it means food > cheese therefor if cheese is delicious it doesn't mean the food
   should be delicious too , but if we say food is delicious then the cheese
   will be 100% delicious as cheese is smaller than food , hope you get what i mean  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.75.143 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC) 

I suppose it would depend on if you say "all" food is delicious or "some" food is delicious. All, some, some not, or none are required on all terms for a correct syllogism. And then, only certain combinations of them can be used for a true one. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 02:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Spring Winter cleaning

I've done my best to consolidate the two-and-a-half lists that were bunched together, and organize them in a meaningful fashion. It ended up being a lot harder than I expected (party due to my limited expertise), and I'm sure I made some mistakes in categorization. Please review the categorization, and don't hesitate to chance something you suspect is incorrect. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

note

This article Moving the goalpost should be linked somewhere into this article; I have no idea where :)
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's already there as moving back the goalpost. I'll change the link the bypass the redirect. Cheers, — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Think we should add a redirect also? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm? Not sure what you mean -- could you clarify? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You got me correctly. [1]

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi, formal or informal?

This article lists Ignoratio elenchi as a formal fallacy, but the atricle for Ignoratio elenchi states that it is a informal fallacy. TLAKABM (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Asteraz fallacy

I can't find a reference or a history of the Asteraz fallacy. Ever instance of it on Google is dated after it was added here. Asteraz is possibly a misspelling or worse a fabrication. If it is a fabrication, is it really a bad thing? New terms are coined all the time, and this one is useful. -- BlindWanderer (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I don't know whether it was added in good faith or as a hoax (here is the diff), but in any case its lack of prominence is good grounds for removal. It also seems very redundant with the general non sequitor. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposing some changes

hi all,

some fallacies have more than one commonly used name, so i think it would be useful to place both names in the list.

also some fallacies seem to be missing, or at least i didn't see them. example

Lakinekaki (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lump-of-Labour Fallacy

I removed it from the list of informal fallacies. It seems to me like such a thing would be too controversial to boil down to a "logical fallacy", and a glance at Lump of labour fallacy supports this. This "fallacy" is more of an unanswered question of economics than anything to do with pure logic. This list needs to be pruned of "fallacies" that are really just academic disputes and needs to be refocused on actual logic. dlainhart (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Devil's Dictionary

The Devil's Dictionary has this:

LOGIC, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion -- thus:

'Major Premise': Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.

'Minor Premise': One man can dig a posthole in sixty seconds; therefore --

'Conclusion': Sixty men can dig a posthole in one second.

This may be called the syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed.

Can someone fix the formatting of this? What kind of fallacy is this?Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 02:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Formal vs. Informal

The Ignoratio elenchi and False dilemma fallacies are listed below Formal, but in the navigationbox they are in the Informal box. Since they are both not based on a logical error, shouldn't they be listed with the informal fallacies? MrBlueSky (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fallacy of misplaced concreteness

I have just found the article Fallacy of misplaced concreteness, but I do not know where to classify it.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Potent Directors fallacy

Does anyone have a good short description of the "potent directors fallacy" -- I've run into the term recently in internet conversations about the financial crises. If we can find a good concise description, perhaps it would fit here in the list of informal fallacies. N2e (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

“But what about him” fallacy

Suppose someone criticizes Rep. Jones, because he ran over a kitty-cat. Then someone else responds that Gov. Smith ran over 3 kitty-cats. Note that this is not in the context where Jones and Smith are running against each other. Or in finance, Jones having stolen $5 billion bears no relevance as to whether Smith was wrong for stealing $5. It is a type of argument from irrelevance, but I don't see it listed.Bostoner (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this, or perhaps a similar fallacy, referred to as "false equivalence", which is not listed. (Actually, it may be another version where A accuses B of something in an argument, B says that A does the same thing, and hence A's argument is invalid.) Someone should probably add that, but I don't know enough about it. --60.241.198.177 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's called tu quoque, and is already listed. Knepflerle (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Prosecutor's fallacy

I have just found Prosecutor's fallacy, but I do not know the right place for it in the list. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It goes under Informal fallacies, since it's a statistical fallacy and not a logical one. I've inserted it into the right place in the list. That said, the article could do with a separate section on statistical fallacies. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Popular Fallacy Needs Identification

I have been noting this fallacy for many years, and it is one of the most common fallacies, as well as one of the biggest propaganda techniques. It is a combination of Ad Hominem and Appeal To Ridicule,whereby someone who is arguing against a point of view, ridicules it by associating it with a ridiculous person. This technique can only be accomplished by a media person, which is probably why you do not see it in the usual list of logical fallacies that can be used by any individual. An example is that many media outlets give as much air time as possible to ridiculous religious spokespeople such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, while thoughtful religious leaders like the late John Paul II, the Dalai Lama, or Ken Wilber are rarely heard, or else their statements are paraphrased by reporters (which is a separate technique whereby approved speakers are heard directly in their own voice, while disapproved speakers are paraphrased by reporters). I have seen this constantly, where reasonable points of view that are opposed by media, are advocated in the media by dim-witted people who always present the wrong arguments, and are clearly selected due to their foolishness. A variation on this technique can be seen when the advocate is already chosen by voting, and then must be made to seem ridiculous. A good example was the constant repetition in the media of Sarah Palin's comment about being able to see Russia from her house, and earlier, Dan Quayle's misspelling of potato (I am not trying to be partisan, and in fact, the techniques are used by media regardless of which side they support.) Before anyone says "that is a propaganda technique, not a logical fallacy", note that I am talking here about the logical fallacy that forms the basis for the technique, namely that the proposition is false, because it is advocated by a ridiculous person. So it is not "Appeal to Ridicule" because you are not ridiculing the proposition itself, and it is not exactly "Ad Hominem" because you not attacking the advocate. I think it is very likely that many people became atheists simply because Tammy Faye Baker was a Christian... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.239.113 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a significant type of fallacy, but we can't really cover it if the literature doesn't cover it. See Wikipedia:No original research. We do cover association fallacy, which I think is similar (albeit somewhat broader) than what you have in mind. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Five new 'fallacies'

People used to walk all over me with these, and I don't believe they've been given names yet. Some of them pertain to victimization and are perhaps even committed by well-known philosophers. These names are only suggestions; maybe you can think of better ones.

Fallacy of the Single Motive -- Like the Fallacy of the Single Cause, only here, a single motive is presumed, as in performing acts of kindness: "You only did that for praise."

Fallacy of the Unconditional Motive -- Consists in identifying a motive that is merely conditional on someone's circumstances with that person's grand, overall intentions and stating that he or she had that motive (and possibly wanted those circumstances) all along. In saying, "I want," the lower-order 'want' may only occur in a higher-order circumstance that itself is unwanted. The fallacy is commited when 'wantedness' is expanded to the entire scenario. For example, when kidnapped, I may want to scream or punish the kidnapper, but that doesn't mean I wanted to do either of those things before being kidnapped, or that I wanted or planned to be kidnapped in the first place.

Fallacy of Attributing Enjoyment -- Consists in stating that because someone acts a certain way or has a certain personality trait, he or she 'enjoys' acting that way or having that trait. This may, perhaps, have occured in Nietzsche's writings: "[Schopenhauer's] anger was his balm, his refreshment, his reward." And later, "The sick are one and all dreadfully eager and inventive in discovering occasions for painful affects; they enjoy being mistrustful and dwelling on nasty deeds..." (On the Genealogy of Morals) [emphasis mine]

Fallacy of Freedom from Behavioral Reinforcement -- Consists in the assumption that someone can perform any action 'just as easily' as any other, as if he or she had perfect psychological freedom in space with his or her actions. This fallacy is in danger of being used by people who want to 'frame' others and make them appear guilty or deserving of suffering through tactical manipulation.

Fallacy of the Lightning Bolt -- Consists in basing the truth of a claim on a striking coincidence associated with it, as when lightning strikes just after a person makes a bold remark. Mere coincidences, no matter how unusual, do not prove God's existence or assent, for example, or any claims associated with them that do not follow logically.

Although three of these are admittedly controversial as they involve the notion of human desire (if not 'fallacies,' they could be called 'devices' and still be questionable), the first and last are formal fallacies.

-Scott

98.230.39.198 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

One-sided argument

I have just discovered One-sided argument. Where on the list should it be? -- Wavelength (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned fallacy articles

Today, I searched Category:Orphaned articles for the first seven months of 2009, searching for the character string "fallacy". The list for July has been completed, and the list for August has been started. I found two articles, both in the very long list for February. They are Intensional fallacy and Netherlands fallacy. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Shifting ground fallacy"

"Shifting ground fallacy" redirects here from it's instance at Equivocation#Specific types of equivocation fallacies. And yet there is no mention of it here. 4.242.174.24 (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are two ideas:

1) False Compromise / Middle Ground

2) Moving the goalpost --BlackMetalWhiteGuy (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What Are These Fallacies Called?

1) Destruction of evidence that contradicts your argument.

or

2) Prevention of evidence from being accessible to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackMetalWhiteGuy (talk • contribs) 03:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

¿ Appeal to Fiction ?

For example "even the atheist in [movie / novel] repented and embraced God."

Or would this just be a specialized example of false attribution or argument from authority? --BlackMetalWhiteGuy (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a fallacy, but rather a falsehood. Recall that a fallacy is not necessarily false, rather it is an invalid argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premise(s). For example:

• "The Earth is flat." - a falsehood, as far as we can tell.
• "Hitler believed the Earth is spheroidal, therefore the Earth is flat." - a fallacy (specifically, Argumentum ad Hitlerum).

To make your example into a fallacy, you would have to draw a logically invalid conclusion from it, such as:

• "Even atheists repent on their deathbeds (or in foxholes, etc.). Therefore God exists."

The existence or nonexistence of God does not follow logically from what atheists do when death approaches, making that argument a fallacy of relevance. If some atheist did not actually repent on his or her deathbed, then the argument would involve a false attribution on top of irrelevance. --Teratornis (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Time to clean this up

Okay, I'm going to start sorting through this page to fix it up. I've added the OR tag as most of these seem to be things thought up in playgrounds. I'm going to nominate a few of the pages linked as non-notable. I'm starting with 'formal' versus 'informal' through reference to published works (like Walton's). If anybody wants to help, that would be appreciated. 203.129.44.15 (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• On second thoughts, after starting to hack through this, I realised that it would probably cause an edit war. The list begins with as a definition of formal fallacies, and then lists a bunch of nonsense that doesn't even match the definition. Formal fallacies are those which can be described through their formal properties. So affirming the consequent, &c. &c., are formal fallacies. If-by-whiskey (WTF?) obviously isn't. 203.129.44.15 (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason this would cause an edit war. As it stands, the list cites one source in the definition of a "formal fallacy". I particularly think, at this point, that the idea of a "list of fallacies" is hopelessly flawed, biased, and unencyclopedic, and the best approach to deal with it is to, perhaps, merge any worthwhile content back into a topical article. There's no controversy here: this list is garbage and if we aren't going to delete it outright, we at least need to get rid of the bullshit. dlainhart (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

At a minimum, maybe put the lists that are mostly in alphabetical order in actual alphabetical order. It looks like some contributors didn't catch the order when they added their fallacies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulehoffman (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Argument from fallacy

I suggest a conclusion is not credible if it is based upon false arguments. Therefore I suggest this be reworded to replace 'not credible' with 'false'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Having trouble classifying a fallacy

Basically, this fallacy says "You say X leads to Y, therefore you want X to lead to Y." I've never seen it in its pure form (I've seen it mixed with the spotlight fallacy), but it is distinct. I have temporarily dubbed it "credere velle est" pending its true classification. A hypothetical example would be if the tobacco lobby said "You say smoking causes cancer, therefore you desire that smokers develop cancer." I've never heard the tobacco lobby say that, but as archy said, "similar absurdities have lodged themselves in the human cerebrum".- 71.13.146.9 (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is This A Formal Fallacy?

I looked but didn't see this particular type of fallacy. Not even sure it is a fallacy, but I run into it all the time and I know it's at least an invalid way of looking at things.

It can be summed up this way: Asserting that something that didn't happen would have happened if different choices had been made. Example: "Dear, if you'd have taken the expressway like I said, we would be home by now," or "If you hadn't made that bad decision choosing X, we would be done with this project by now."

Basically, you can't prove that something that didn't happen would have happened if different choices had been made. Sort of sounds like a Negative kind of fallacy, but I couldn't find it specifically listed. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.119.98 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tootiredtosleep (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How about Godwin's fallacy?

You cite Godwin's law to "prove" that your opponent's argument is irrational because it contained a reference to Nazis. Perhaps a more general form of this fallacy is to entirely reject any argument because it contains a reference to something tabu.--128.187.80.2 (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Murphy's Law

Is the reference to Murphy's Law relevant?

Most importantly, Murphy's Law is intended as a joke and thus hardly qualifies as a serious misuse of logic.

But even if we were to take Murphy's Law seriously, I don't think it qualifies as an "Appeal to probability": Murphy's Law is not based on the assumption that if something could happen, it will happen; instead it states as a fact that if something bad could happen, it will happen.

I recommend removing the reference to Murphy's Law. --Oz1cz (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that Murphy's law is a quite well known example of the appeal to probability fallacy. In fact I would think that it is the most common use of it as well. I have seen people use it as a basis for actual real world decision making on many occasions. So yes I think we should mention it.

As to the argument that it might not actually represent the fallacy in question; this is a more interesting point, the law as stated on WP is "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong". Your right this "states as a fact" that the bad thing will happen. But is that not the heart of the appeal to probability fallacy?

The fallacy as stated in this article is (bold emphasis mine):

• Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.

I think that sums up the underlying reasoning behind Murphy's law quite succinctly. The fallacy as worded also states as a fact that the event in question "will" happen.

I added the sentence back before I noticed you had brought the question up here, my apologies for that. If you still feel the article is better off without it then feel free to remove it again and I wont add it back until we have discussed it here further. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be dogmatic in the matter. I would like to clarify my second point though. An appeal to probability is a misuse of logic, and it is normally disguised. You will never hear anybody seriously say: "I may win the lottery, therefore I will win the lottery." Murphy's Law, on the other hand, claims that the appeal to probability is, in fact, quite legitimate and is not misuse at all, provided you are talking about bad things.

But as I said: I'm not going to be dogmatic about this, and I will not revert the change.--Oz1cz (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Potent directors" fallacy

Is there some other fallacy, by another name, that might cover the "potent directors" fallacy that I recently heard mentioned in a talk. Or is this informal fallacy perhaps merely missing from the list?

The idea is that it is a fallacy to believe that various technocratic arms of the state, or even a government of kings/advisers or elected leaders/advisers, have learned to control this or that societal outcome to the extent that is widely believed to be true by the populace at large. It seems to be oftentimes associated with the assumption of macroeconomic or monetary control by central authorities, e.g., the or the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, various national central banks including the US Fed. There seem to be quite a number of google hits on the "potent directors" fallacy. Those who address this fallacy appear to assert that a wide variety of empirical evidence shows this widely-held fallacy to be suspect.

My question, is the potent directors fallacy sufficiently notable to add to this list? Any thoughts? Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Naturalistic Fallacy

The naturalistic fallacy as it was coined by G. E. Moore is not deriving goodness from what is natural. Nor was it that one cannot derive ought from is, which is sometimes called Hume's guillotine. If anything, the fallacy of determining the goodness of something by its origins (say, nature) is the genetic fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McDingus (talk • contribs) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

From the page you cite "by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.)." from this article "Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is good or right." In this example the property being put forward is that X is natural and there for Good. This fits the definition of the fallacy. How ever you are correct that the definition used in this article is too narrow. Perhaps change it to "Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, evolved, or desired ETC., then it is good or right."Donhoraldo (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

quatificational fallacy - Implied existence assertion

When you use the name of a thing - even if that name is a noun phrase - then you are implying the existence of the thing. Eg:

• "The basketball on my table is blue"

Simply saying this implies an existence claim, because properties only pertain to existent things (because when someone states a proposition, we assume that they are not stating a vacuous truth). This becomes a fallacy when the existence of the thing is the point in dispute, most typically:

• "Why are you so angry at God?"

English permits things to be reified into nouns. Say we wish to argue that the world is flat. We turn this proposition into a noun phrase "the world's flatness", and insert into some other proposition:

• "The world's flatness has not been adequately accounted for"

Or, more famounsly:

• "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

This is a quantificational fallacy like the existential fallacy ... but I'm not sure that it's a formal fallacy at all, so I'm not sure where it fits on the list. Paul Murray (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rainmaker Fallacy

The rainmaker fallacy is based off the idea of making it rain via some magic or pseudoscience, but not taking into account the fact it might rain anyways. Example: Preform rain dance>some time later it rains>rain dances work. This isn't a commonly talked about fallacy but it is commonly used. Maybe we should include it in the list.Donhoraldo (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fallacy based on errors

Some religions will say science can't be trusted because it has had errors or inaccuracies in its past. (like Einstein expanding on Newton's "laws") Almost a Nirvana but it seems like it could also be something else or new.

Johngagon (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it a fallacy to say that even basic mathematics can't be trusted since the failure to prove Hilbert's second problem? More specifically, that at least part of it is false (Impossible to prove internal consistency). Nevermind science which kind of depends on mathematics. Student7 (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Loki's Wager is Still Not a Fallacy

Loki's Wager removed, as it is still not a fallacy.Mephistopheles (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Which fallacy is this one?

I've been getting pretty annoyed at an individual. Trying to reason with him goes something like this:

• Him: A.
• Me: Not A, because B.
• Him: A.
• Me: Not A, because B. Furthermore, C.
• Him: A.
• Me: Are you even listening?
• Him: A.
• (several days later)
• Him: I told you, A!

That is, he repeats the same assertion again and again. He does not even bother to provide rationale for his statement. Does anyone know what it's called? I don't think it's quite ad nauseam because it's not discussed to death--there is no discussion with him because this is all he cares to say about it. Is it proof by assertion? Ron Stoppable (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "fallacy" per se, though someone else may be able to help. This is an assertion technique (thanks to your objective reporting) known as "Broken Record." These are most effectively used in verbal sparring! Not necessarily that effective in writing, but they can be used (obviously). :) Kind of loses it's effectiveness when the target (you) realizes what's happening. Good luck. Student7 (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't think he even knows he's using it, though he continues to say the same thing again and again in spite of how later on, other people have intervened against him. (He doesn't use the exact same statement, of course, but it certainly feels like he isn't listening.) He's stopped for now, but I'm sure it'll flare up the moment he's reminded of the issue. Ron Stoppable (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

On occasion my opponents (blush!) have been instructed to ignore me! Else I rant at them! I admit that technique works!  :( Student7 (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Argument from Ignorance

Hi, why is this described as "appeal to emotion" the article itself doesn't say anything about emotion, and it doesn't make sense to me either. --Trickstar (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This appeared to be out of place. I removed it. It is mentioned earlier in the article. Thanks for pointing that out. Student7 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Pointing readers to further reading

I have made a brief explanatory sentence to the 'Further reading' section, in response to a hidden comment from an editor on the need for annotations. Annotations are not always necessary, but can be useful. Some titles are self-explanatory, while others are not. For those that are not automatically self-explanatory, a generic statement atop the list can cover the issue, thus allowing also that others may add a title or two. For example, a book's title may refer only to 'critical thinking'. Anyone who has made an effort to review books on such matters will know that they typically contain reference to fallacies, sometimes including one or more chapters specifically addressing the subject.

The object of an encyclopedia is to facilitate knowledge, synopse it, and criticaly, point the reader to further sources, because it is impossible for an encyclopedia to cover the depth and even the breadth (though the latter must be an idealistic goal) of most subjects. Wikipedia is no different in this regard, with the exception that it is a publicly editable database that has quirks unique to such an enterprise. These quirks aside, the objective cannot be just to showcase how clever editors are, and limit readers to 'the way the truth and the light' as any given editors see it, or to be a vehicle for editors to nitpick each other. It must also be to point the reader to enquire beyond its own realm, as all good educators and education materials always do to some extent or other.

In the current case, perhaps some astute editor/s will capitalise upon the material provided to find citations for some of the text in the article, there being only one citation at time of input, and that from an obscure-looking text with no viewable link (I'm not saying it's of no value. I don't know. I am correctly saying it's obscure - here we have a subject of which much is written, as evidenced alone by my very brief 'further reading' foray, and for which the only citation provided is an obscure text!). At time of input, I doubt the materials I've listed would facilitate citations for all the material, but it is certain that some citations can be found. So it's up to those who care enough, to capitalise on my effort.

If you care but are not familiar with citations, don't worry. Just copy-and-paste the citation I've provided, add <ref> at the front, and </ref> at the end, and it should show up. Failing that, there is information, and there are editors, who can help. Wotnow (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to update the messagebox to that which seems to most accurately represent the situation (but doesn't include 'material may be removed' statements which look more confrontational than helpful in situations like this). The material lin this article doesn't look like original research to me. Much of it looks familiar - i.e. stuff you come across in books and journals if you read extensively enough. To collate this stuff in one place is to do people a service, and indeed to be encyclopedic. What it needs is inline citations. That itself requires finding reliable citation sources for existing text, and perhaps amendments to text to match that which is found in the citation exercise/s (minor amendments by preference, major by necessity only, and also only after a respectable effort to maintain integrity of existing text). And that requires listing material to peruse for such citations, hence my own starting point. I don't have time to follow-up, but I can absolutely guarantee that if reliable citations (e.g. books and journals) can be found for any given text, I'd find it. And if I can, so can others. But one has to start somewhere. And that place is the listing of resources to peruse. Wotnow (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems one does encounter when wading through books and articles on this stuff, is that the same fallacy may be presented with a slightly different name. On the one hand, this may hinder the addition of inline citations for this article. On the other hand, it is incumbent upon this article to note those fallacies which have different names but are in fact the same. The trick is finding references that help one figure these out. Which forever brings us back to the act of listing resources in the first place, and then working through them. Wotnow (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been tackling this recently. My first priority is to make sure content is verifiable through reliable sources since I've spotted a few dubious entries. —Mrwojo (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Luddite fallacy

The Luddite fallacy is not a rhetorical fallacy. It probably belongs under a list of misconceptions or a separate list of economic fallacies. Crasshopper (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thought Terminating Cliche

While amusing, I'm not sure the recursive definition on Thought Terminating Cliche is appropriate :) Rjstreet (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a fallacy of “not considering the alternative”?

Is there a fallacy of “not evaluating the alternative”? E.g. “P and not-P are possible options. P is undesirable, therefore not-P must be the better option.” Whereas not-P may be even more undesiable than P. – Kaihsu (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

False dilemma. Greg Bard (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to Time?

Appeal to Time: assumes that time spent or the lack there of, on said subject matter, validates/invalidates an argument. (**EDIT** or- renders an argument correct/incorrect)

I made the discovery some time ago. It was noted that it may be considered a subset of the Appeal to Tradition. I do not think this to be the case, perhaps the opposite is true. My question is where should we add it? VindicatedVigilante (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The typical argument goes something like this:

X time was spent on subject Y - Therefore: Y is correct/incorrect VindicatedVigilante (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, we may even consider Appeal to Authority a subset. VindicatedVigilante (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

- ***Justification for considering Appeal to Authority a subset. Person A spent X time developing subject Y and is therefore considered, either an authority or not - Therefore Y is correct/incorrect*** However, this may just be a special case of Appeal to Time VindicatedVigilante (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

- ***Justification for considering Appeal to Tradition a subset. Person/Group A spent X time considering subject Y to be correct/incorrect - Therefore Y is correct/incorrect*** These may be unrelated, other than the issue of Time. (Really I think this is nothing more than an Appeal to Tradition) VindicatedVigilante (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue this is a formal fallacy. VindicatedVigilante (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

We may be able to rework the argument and create a catch all - Appeal to Numbers (prime): assumes that more or less of X (X being the thing of emphasis or proposed/supposed value) renders proposition Y correct/incorrect VindicatedVigilante (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Is anyone in opposition of Appeal to Time? I will be adding it withing 24 hours. Is anyone in opposition of Appeal to Numbers? I will be making a new section as this is what I consider a "prime" or foundational fallacy. Meaning, there are several fallacies that may be considered "subsets". I would like to give some real world examples of both fallacies, as they may be unclear, before I post them in the public article.

Appeal to Time:

• 1) I spent the past (X) 50 years on this project of course (Y) its right!
• 2) Ive put in (X) 100's of hours developing this philosophy. Meaning (Y) Im at least "more right" than you.
• 3) Hes only been here for (X) ten days! (Y) How can he possibly know what he is talking about!

Appeal to Numbers (prime):

• 0) I scored (X) 10 points over his test score. (Y) Its obvious I have a far superior intellect.
• 1) (Justification for considering Appeal to Wealth a subset) Look, who has (X) more money? Of course (Y) I know what Im doing at least more so than that guy!
• 2) (Justification for considering Appeal to Tradition a subset) Look we have been doing it this way for (X) 50 years. (Y) You cant argue with 50 years of tradition.
• 3) (Justification for considering Appeal to Popularity a subset) (X) Half of the nation say (Y) Christianity is the one true religion. With numbers like that who car argue?
• 4) (Justification for considering Appeal to Time a subset) Ive put in (X) 100's of hours developing this philosophy. Meaning (Y) Im at least "more right" than you.
• 5) (Justification for considering Appeal to Authority a subset.) Ive spent (X) 20 years developing this subject. (Y) Im the authority. Making me without a doubt correct! (Again, this may just be a special case of Appeal to Time)
• 6) I would argue that most "generalizations" can be categorized under this fallacy.
• 7) There may be others however these come to mind.

In the case of Appeal to Numbers I will be creating a new section altogether I will call Foundational Fallacies. I will consider the lack of a response from the greater community consent and move forward as planned. I look forward to hearing from you.

VindicatedVigilante (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well first off this is just a list. So until each fallacy has its own article they should not be included. Second I would refer you to WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. These are two of the most important policies on WP and they must be followed. Colincbn (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Colincbn. I will review the articles. VindicatedVigilante (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn - I argue that this needs no verifiable source and is not "likely to be challenged". Your challenge was made on the basis of categorization. That being the case, your input is relevant. I asked the question above. Where should we place the the fallacy (Appeal to Time)? Appeal to Numbers is all together a new "foundational form" and therefore should be classified as such. VindicatedVigilante (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. Colincbn (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Specifically: "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged". Colincbn (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Without prejudice, why two articles?

There is an article on fallacy and on List of fallacies. A cursory look suggests to me that they could and should be united (with redirection if desired). Am I missing something? (I am putting this question in the other discussion page as well). JonRichfield (Whoops! Corrected minor error.(talk) 15:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree as fallacy seems to be in list format already. Either it should be converted to prose or merged with this article. Devourer09 (t·c) 19:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What Does This Mean?

"Appeal to authority does not condone to agreeing to the argument."

I cannot make heads or tails of this sentence. (And I have a PhD in political philosophy, so I don't think it's because I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter!) GeneCallahan (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to second this comment. That sentence makes no sense to me at all either. Can someone please explain and defend this sentence? Otherwise, I suggest that we delete it. El Zarco 14:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this statement from the list. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority - Misunderstood

Wikipedia's current description of "Appeal to Authority" is incorrect.

A common misunderstanding is that an Appeal to Authority is acceptable if the authority is an expert. However, it is this very situation for which the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority becomes relevant. Something isn't true simply because an authority says it's true, regardless of that authority's credentials. Authorities can be mistaken or wrong. An objection on this account is not intended as a disrespectful offense against the authority, but merely a reminder that the truth of an argument does not depend on the person stating the argument. That's the whole point of the Fallacy!

I am new to Wikipedia, so I am hesitant to make any official changes to articles yet. However, I felt the need to point this out somewhere. Maybe someone else would like to look into this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logitor (talk • contribs) 02:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority currently appears twice in the article. The second time it appears, the definition appears to be correct. Above, I am referring to the following statement.....

"a logical fallacy is only asserted when the source is not a legitimate expert on the topic at hand, or their conclusion(s) are in direct opposition to other expert consensus"

That is not correct. An Appeal to Authority is always a Fallacy. Logitor (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Logitor. Appeal to Authority is definitely a fallacy. But I was wondering if you could help me understand what sort of logic allows appeal to authority. For example, in a court of law, an expert witness may be called to give her profession opinion on some data. This can be used as evidence that leads to a verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt." Clearly that is not a deductive proof, but it does add to an argument. So what sort of logic is it? Does anyone know? Thanks El Zarco 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the first, dubious description of appeal to authority. As to your question, El Zarco, you might find something of interest in the argumentation theory article. It can be interpreted as inductive logic. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why use this example?

The military uniform is a symbol of national strength and honor.

You telling me that Wikipedia can't find a better example of a media/political fallacy?

How about, "I've never had sex with that woman."

So much for liberals supporting the troops. Make sure you wipe my edit before someone reads it.

Way to go for ranting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by anon (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for fallacies

What fallacy would be that if a claim is not perfect, like free energy, then all its feats are irrelevant, like Water-fuelled car ? Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is called Nirvana fallacy. However, free energy and Water-fuelled car are not merely "not perfect", they're flat out scams. Read the arguments for these idea with the list of fallacies next to you and analyze every single sentence with that in mind. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Intentional fallacy

This is not a fallacy in the same sense of the rest, but simply an opinion advanced by some critics about how to approach a work of literature. There is no citation that it's commonly regarded as a logical fallacy either; I am therefore removing it. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands fallacy

"Netherlands fallacy" can be added to the list, but I do not know the correct place for it.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Credentialism

Credentialism should be on this list, although the appeal to authority is closely related. 76.120.17.197 (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"Spider-Man fallacy?"

I love Spidey, but what does he have to do with appeal to scripture? 71.226.144.42 (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Empty Chair fallacy?"

Clint Eastwood's "debate" with an empty chair at the 2012 GOP convention seems like it might merit a logical fallacy. For example, the Eastwood Fallacy: arguing with an inanimate object that can't argue back, or arguing against a position knowing that the other party isn't present, can't respond, or wasn't invited to the debate. Although, admittedly, this addition might be "original research" even under the informal fallacies section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.173.26 (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't see how it's a fallacy. Got reliable references supporting that it is? Seems more like a theatrical "technique". MathewTownsend (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me it's not even worth responding, Mathew. It's IP users doing what they do best slightly less than half the time. Lighthead ^þ 20:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Other

Not sure what the proper way to do this is, but couldn't many of these fallacies benefit from examples to? I think it would make some of them more clear. Shilpanicodemus (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If we can prevent just one X we must do Y

"If only one person could be saved from an accident with this new law forbidding cars we should have it" sounds like a sound case to ban cars, but anyone can imagine that the costs would be so high that other, and probably more, people will die because of such a ban (even something like medications not delivered soon enough might convince the imaginary pro-ban crowd). The mentioned Broken window fallacy covers this fallacy remotely, though a broader article on the fallacies that involve the difference between the "seen" and "unseen" effects of policies would be nice.

But what's the fallacy called if it's not about economics at all? For example, if school swimming lessons are banned after the proverbial "only one" kid drowns ("if we could only save one life by not allowing our children to be forced to swim in school"), probably resulting in many more kids drowning outside the responsibility of the school. Should this be in the list? Or is it, and did I miss it? Anyway, I guess the Romans didn't use this kind of argument, but a Latin phrase ("si tantum unus" says Google, but that's Google) to use against "If only one ..", or the hideous "You should tell that the parents of..." would be great. Joepnl (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

See-Saw Fallacy

What is it called when two things are presented as being on a see-saw? My favourite example is victims rights vs prisoners rights. But lately I have seen it as traditional marriage vs gay marriage. (The 'vs' is always a give away).

I see this all the time in the media but I do not know what the proper term for it is. It is a rhetorical device that is always presented as a logic. In a case of X vs Y then you can shift the argument away from X to Y. Y is good so X must be bad. Y is bad so X must be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

False Equivalence

Seems like "False equivalence" should belong in this list, no? Benefac (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad link

The red herring link is going to the wrong article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.82 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

List of fallacies by date of discovery

I brought this up at Category_talk:Logical_fallacies but figured there might be better feedback here. Is this a feasible project, that we could chronologically order all 72+ fallacies in a numbered list based on dates we have for their first discoveries? Ranze (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Abusive fallacy?

I don't think that this is a proper fallacy in the sense that name calling is hardly used as an argument when it happens. There should be a strong distinction made between "I tell you that you are stupid because I think it and want to express it" and "I tell you that you are stupid implying that I am right and you are wrong because you are stupid". Is there any proper reference about this specific subset of the argumentum ad hominem? I visited this page quite often and I remember not seeing this. I am suspecting that someone with a personal agenda added it to the list knowing (hoping?) that it would be used by people to completely void and close arguments when name calling starts happening. This is a very annoying tendency of people to start completely throw out perfectly sound and logical arguments because it is accompanied by name calling. I think there is a name for that. I would like to see a reference supporting this fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.175.135.134 (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

See argumentum ad hominem. It is on the list. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

'argumentum' is not 'appeal'

I didn't feel snippy enough to wade through and correct every instance of this (apparently popular) mis-use, but the one that said:

Argumentum ad baculum (literally "appeal to the stick" or "appeal to force")

I felt I had to change. Something that claims to 'literally' translate something should literally translate it.

For curiosity's sake, does anyone know how "appeal to" became a popular way to mis-translate "argument to" or "proof by"?

It comes from the expression "appeal to the authority of" (the law, the Bible, your professor, whatever), which describes an action/decision but doesn't imply fallaciousness (e.g., it's perfectly rational to appeal to the authority of a dictionary if someone dubiously tells you an accepted plural of 'octopus' is 'octopera'). This stock phrase has become confused with "argument to authority", and the misusage spread, to other "argument to" fallacy names. I've seen this misapplication of "appeal to" worsen within my lifetime, and I'm only 45. It's pretty crappy that this entire article leans heavily toward the "appeal to" construction. Temp4590 (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Denigration of single source , when other sources hold the view -

Is there a name and type of fallacy where citing a problematic (not credible or biased) source is used to try and defeat an proposition, despite it also being held by credible or non biased sources? Ie: a specific known partisan on the left (or right) says the 'sky is blue,' therefore the proposition that the sky is blue is not credible, due to a partisan making the assertion despite the fact that experts and non partisan also make the same proposal. also EG: Al Gore says there is global warming, he is partisan, therefore it is credible. The NRA president says US gun murder is down 40%, he is partisan, therefore it is untrue; etc.108.48.227.93 (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the fallacy of guilt by association, and this form of it is sometimes also called shooting or blaming the messenger. It can also involve argument to emotion, obviously, if the denigrated source/speaker is being reviled, not simply distrusted. As you hinted in the Al Gore example, it can also be operated in reverse, with argument to popularity bolstering what could perhaps be called "innocence by association", though I don't think there's really a name for it. It's just inversion or reversal of guilt by association. Temp4590 (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Classification of Fallacies

The classification of fallacies should be completely restructured. As it is (december 2013) it is completely whimsical - not even arbitrary, but whimsical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.14.19 (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Shotgun argumentation error and original research

This unsourced, wrong, and just made-up passage does not belong on this page:

"Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)

There are several problems with this:

1) What is described here as "shotgun argumentation" is not a fallacy in and of itself, nor even fallacious more broadly; in fact, arguing against a proposition simply on the basis that the opponent has provided a larger number of arguments than one is prepared to address is itself very badly and obviously a fallacy! If I have different 17 reasons why Elvis is not still alive and hanging out with Bigfoot, and you don't have the time or materials to address more than 4 of them, this is not a problem on my part but on yours.

2) "Gish Gallop" is not described "above", but at its own article; maybe this was intended to read '(See "Argument by verbosity", above, and "Gish Gallop".)'

3) Gish Gallop is not a fallacy, either; it is the controlling of the debate and its format such that one presenter is allowed to throw up large number of premises and conclusions, or even just ranty attacks and nonsense, without the opponent being allowed to respond, such that when the opponent is finally permitted to participate, they have far too many claims by the original presenter to challenge or even remember, and certainly no time to make their own prepared argument.

4) Gish Gallop is related to but not synonymous with argument by verbosity; it's controlling the debate to make an argument by verbosity easy. The argument to verbosity is the delivery itself, the rambling stream of not-really-cogent, topically wandering blather, or the paragraph after paragraph, page after page, of written verbal diarrhoea. The intent of the argument to verbosity is to make it impractical for the opposition to wade through all of the claims and "facts" and refute them. The intent of the Gish Gallop is to ensure that this can be pulled off in such a way that the opposition cannot possible dig out of it the allotted time.

5) Neither of these things are what "shotgun argumentation" means. It refers to making a broad range of largely unconnected points against an opponent's position, on the assumption that if even one or a few are not adequately refuted that the opposition will appear to be discredited or at least their argument weakened and suspect. This is distinguishable from argument by verbosity, because shotgun argumentation is about the quantity of distinguishable and possibly cogent claims, made with the expectation that at least some will not be refutable at all (because their presenter can defend them, not because of lack of time or due to confusion or unfair debate structure). Argument by verbosity is about the quantity of words, and the likelihood no one will be able to sort out the mess in the allotted or practical time. Again, Gish Gallop is distinguishable from both because it's not an argument style, but a forum control measure to ensure that argument by verbosity plays out as planned. Shotgun argumentation can be a perfectly valid technique, when there are many correct arguments against a hypothesis, and they do not all follow from one another, but have disparate factual bases. It's a tiresome but not actually fallacious tactic when many related correct arguments against a position are presented separately, shotgun style, instead of in a tidy causal chain. In excess, it can produce a fallacy of argument by verbosity, but so can anything argued at too great a length; the verbosity is not a part of what makes a shotgun argument a shotgun argument, just the many-premised nature of the argument.

Temp4590 (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Naturalistic fallacy listings are out of control

Listed twice in two different sections, with contradictory definitions. It's likely that either one source is unreliable in confusing that name with the argument to nature fallacy (my bet is on this error), or with misapplying it to the is–ought fallacy. Temp4590 (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This is now even worse; it's listed three times now, in three different sections (once redundantly and once conflictingly); not one of the three cases is sourced. Temp4590 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"Quantification fallacies" Section

Section "Quantification fallacies" Indicates multiple fallacies but only lists one.Sandfortw (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Still not fixed, and unsourced to boot. Don't make sections for one item; merge this into an existing section. Maybe someone should start sourcing this article? I suspect that a very large amount of original research is all over this piece. Temp4590 (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

cumulative causation fallacy (the Black Friday fallacy)

The time of the year when the mass media engages cumulative causation fallacy on the population by taking a relatively small number of people shopping, often in a rehearsed camera shot showing them walking into a store, and suggesting it's a much greater number creating a positive feedback loop and coercing more of the masses to shop. This is fallacious reasoning as positive feedback effect amplifies itself to the point where it destroys its own device. In this case it's done by depleting shoppers credit to the point where they haven't sufficient funds remaining to pay for basic necessities.

Citation to Wiki article Positive Feedback: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback

Can't cite WP as a source for itself: WP:Verifiability. Temp4590 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Trolling

Should trolling (a relatively new phenomenon on Twitter) by classified as a Ad Ho attack? 79.70.78.192 (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. "Trolling" has meanings that go a long way back, certainly before Twitter and even before the Web. Trolling does not necessarily involve ad hominem argument, although it might involve it. Just firing insults at someone, or saying things to deliberately upset them, is not the same as ad hominem argument. So I wouldn't classify trolling on this list, even though ad hominem or other fallacies might be used by trolls. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law (comparing something done now to something the Nazis or Hitler did then) is only violated when you make an invalid or incorrect comparison. Example: when three "One-Percenters" in the US compared themselves to the German Jews during the Nazi era, claimed that Progressivism is Fascism and that Progressives are waiting to carry out their own "Kristallnacht", those are "going Full Godwin". However, because the Nazis were Fascists and there are 14 defining characteristics of Fascism, according to Laurence Britt's article in the Spring 2003 edition of Free Inquiry magazine entitled, "Fascism anyone? The fourteen identifying characteristics of Fascism (subtitle called them "defining characteristics")", activity that matches at least one of those "defining characteristics" can be correctly compared to Hitler or the Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1C80:28:153A:7986:D68F:BA0E (talk • contribs) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Ironic" fallacy or "projection"

An example of this would be one making a correct comparison or argument and his/her opponent claiming a "Straw Man" argument, which is a Straw Man argument in itself. The Republican Party in the USA use projection on a regular basis. Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican that represents the state of Texas, recently said that the "biggest lie Liberals tell is that the Republicans are the party of the rich". Considering that nearly every financial policy of the GOP is geared toward "upward wealth redistribution", Cruz's argument is "projection", as it indirectly calls "Straw Man" on a truthful statement/comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1C80:28:153A:7986:D68F:BA0E (talk • contribs) 01:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Debate over straw man vs. ad infinitum/slippery slope

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

Please see Talk:Straw man#The sunny days example doesn't belong here, for a discussion of whether a particular example used in at straw man actually constitutes a straw man or an ad infinitum + a slippery slope.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying therefore you must be stupid

What's the name for the old "I don't understand what you are saying therefore you must be stupid" fallacy? Just granpa (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The argument is wrong because some of its supporters are bad people

Is that just a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum? I recently came across an appeal to American leftists to reject an argument in part because people like Rush Limbaugh and Paul Wolfowitz believed it. JoshNarins (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

-Hey JoshNarins, am new here, am not sure how to reply, but here it goes: I believe that is covered here under the Association Fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.155.6 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Moralistic fallacy: For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy..... This needs amending

The claim that a you can't get an 'is' from and 'ought' is simply incorrect. There cannot be an 'is' without an 'ought.' We agree the world *is* round because we agree that we *ought* to value evidence.

The article needs an amendment on this point to make it clear that inferring is from ought can be a moralistic fallacy but is not necessarily the case.

86.152.115.197 (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"Mind projection fallacy"

Does this claim have any kind of finality whatsoever? It seems to be nothing other then the canonization of a philosophical interpretation, itself committing any number of fallacies. I'm unable to find any adherent of the Copenhagen Interpretation (it's original target) that bothers to address it's rather vague and obscure objection. It seems to mostly be the fodder of self-congratulation by forum and blog posters, without any kind of logical or epistemic certitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equilibrium103 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Examples?

Would it be an overreach to provide examples of each type? I feel that would be a more informative method than simply providing a definition. 75.128.71.130 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge with fallacy

Considering there's already a fallacy page which deals with different types of fallacy in a much more detailed way, wouldn't it make sense to just merge this list into that page rather than have one page displaying all fallacies of a particular type under a heading without much information about why the various fallacies are categorized as formal/informal etc? Just a suggestion.Equivocasmannus (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad (internal) link

Proof by verbosity ("argument to exhaustion") does not link to the intended place, but to Proof by intimidation, a largely unrelated fallacy. The text here even confuses them, probably because of the pseudo-Latin monicker ascribed to the latter. Proof by intimidation is the fallacy of argument to one's own preeminence or position (or to that of those making the argument one is defending); it is a combined variant of argument to authority and argument to emotion, and has nothing to do with "winning" arguments by flooding the opponent with so much material they give up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

heaven's reward fallacy.

I can't find heaven's reward fallacy in this list. The fallicy is the expecation that good things should happen to good people. Should this be added? Can this be added? --Lbeaumont (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I like it! So much that I put it in right away with a citation I found. I put it in Informal fallacies right after gambler's fallacy alphabetically, but is also another hopeful thinking type fallacy. Thanks for pointing it out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Alas, an IP removed it. I suppose if I put it back, someone else will remove it. The IP said it was "not really a fallacy per-se, as it may or may not be fallacious, depending on your notion of whether or not good people actually are rewarded for their actions." The citation I gave did mention it as a distorted thinking and sourced it from "Thoughts & Feelings" by McKay, Davis, & Fanning in 1981. an excerpt can be found here. It mentions 15 items and to quote about this one: "15. Heaven's Reward Fallacy. We expect our sacrifice and self-denial to pay off, as if someone is keeping score. We feel bitter when the reward doesn't come." So is "distorted thinking" a fallacy? Perhaps it could be reworded? Not mention the "keeping score" part? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not subjective enough to be specified as a fallacy, and fails to generally cohere due to the ambiguity of "good". Let's take "doing good work will yield good product", for example. Is good work fast work? Or is it detailed and comprehensive work? Is a good product one that sells? Or is it one of high quality? As per our definition of good, I can objectify and expand the notion of "Good things should happen to good people" to "High quality products will be attributed to detail-oriented working people" if good things means high quality product attribution and good people are people who do detail oriented work. For another example, "Social abundance should happen to friendly people"... Ben Barkay (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example of this as a fallacy: Person A's car breaks down. Person A get mad about it. Person B ask why get upset, cars break down, happens to everyone. Person A say "I do so many good things, bad things shouldn't happen to me. It is not fair." The fallacy is the belief that because you do good things, bad things should not happen to you. Everyone does good things or at least things they believe to be good. The fallacy is not about what is and is not good, it is about poor reasoning. It is also not about religion, Person A could be a materialist and still think good acts give protection from random bad events. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this fallacy more usually called the just world fallacy?Thefatoafeditor (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently as we have an article: Just-world hypothesis. Says it is a cognitive bias and mentions it "has high potential to result in fallacy". A bunch of the items listed on this page are not fallacies, but just bad assumptions or tendencies to make bad assumptions. We could add it to the list. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Are these fallacious arguments? If so - what are their names, and shall they be added to the page?

Maybe they're not fallacious arguments, but I'm positive they are. Maybe I missed the line they were on ('lots of fallacies on here so it's reasonable to assume I missed a couple'), but here are some examples of said fallacies, as I am not sure of their names ('or if they exist'):

1. "I may as well do it because someone else will do it" - justifying an action that may be seen as immoral because another person may participate in these wrong-doings themselves, ie: I may as well sell these drugs because someone else is going to if I don't.

2. "Because someone else is doing it, I can do it to" - justifying an action because someone else does it, ie: it's okay for me to litter cigarettes because I see other people littering cigarettes frequently.

3. "A good deed doesn't cancel out a wrong doing" - justifying the doing of an immoral action (or actions) because they also do good deeds, ie: a man donates $5,000,000 to various charities each year (good deed), but he uses this to justify sexually assaulting young boys (bad deed).

4. "I can afford to do it, therefore I'm entitled to it" - justifying ones actions that may be perceived as wrong because they can "afford" to do it, ie: a person throws out a substantial amount of the food they purchase because they can afford to do so. I come across people using this type of logic a fair bit in real life where they justify being wasteful because they can financially afford to be wasteful.

5. I don't know how to accurately summarize this one ('maybe shifting the blame'?), but it gets thrown at me pretty frequently so I'll give two examples of it; (a) I would say; "you never finish all of the food on your plate, plus you don't eat your leftovers, so you end up throwing out good food in the trash - so put less food on your plate", there response, "just be happy, lighten up man", it's kinda as if they're tryin' to make me seem like the villain when I'm just tryna' look out for the planet. Seems like a red herring argument no doubt, but is there a specific name for the type of red herring? (b) another example would be something like, someone says a racist "joke", and when I call them out on it, they end up copping out and calling me "too serious" in a negative way, and again, try to make me seem like the villain, when we damn well know a portion of the time someone says a racist "joke", they aren't actually joking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Unwarranted assumption fallacy or Fallacies of Presumption

I removed the following from the formal fallacies:

• Unwarranted assumption fallacy - The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false - these premises are usually suppressed or vaguely written. An assumption is also unwarranted when it is true but does not apply in the given context.

It has no citation nor article. I (and others I suppose) left it there because it seems like there should be one. I look around again for some support and discovered it is refereed to as "Fallacies of Presumption" and is a category of both formal and informal fallacies.

Perhaps we should add a section mentioning different ways of categorizing fallacies. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of fallacies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205021701/http://www.davidbergan.com/Summa/Chronological_snobbery to http://www.davidbergan.com/Summa/Chronological_snobbery

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

fallacy of a faulty comparison?

Transferred to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities where questions like this are answered. This page is for discussing improvement to the article.
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
i was going about my internet browsing like usual when i came across a picture that said "a liberal's paradise would be free this and that and the other. but believe it or not, a place like that exists. it's called prison" that isn't really an accurate comparison, is there some type of fallacy that covers this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.58.228 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of fallacies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150208192303/http://human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep043348.html to http://human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep043348.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120113200604/http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?query=homunculus&widen=1&result_number=1&book_id=g9781405106795_9781405106795&from=search&fuzzy=0&type=std&id=g9781405106795_chunk_g97814051067959_ss1-77&slop=1 to http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?query=homunculus&widen=1&result_number=1&book_id=g9781405106795_9781405106795&from=search&fuzzy=0&type=std&id=g9781405106795_chunk_g97814051067959_ss1-77&slop=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of fallacies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.davidbergan.com/Summa/Chronological_snobbery

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

These aren't really fallacies ....

The label is a bit confusing, as fallacy has common meaning of 'a wrong belief, a false or mistaken idea'. (m-w.com)

The items listed seem basically Rhetorical device, a tactic of language to convince folks. Methods of one sort or another used intentionally and commonly seen in advocacy. Doesn't mean the belief being advanced is wrong, just that silly word games are going on.

So the label association of 'wrong belief' is confusing, and even the provided subtext that the logic isn't formal or good -- isn't relevant.

Maybe better to insert (neutrally) that these poor-logic items are often used styles of argument in convincing people. - Seems to me like it's kind of the main point about them.

Markbassett (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Markbassett (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That's basically what the lead says, though not in so many words; it can be expanded a little.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, will give it a shot. Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

False Fallacy

From a Wikipedian's point of view the problem with the false fallacy is ubiquitous. In this fallacy, the responder asserts that the speaker has committed xyz fallacy when in fact no such fallacy has been committed, but the discussion has now been re-directed to a review of the xyz fallacy rather than the original premise. For example, the speaker offers that: the coffee is hot, so the cup is hot, too. But a responder, who doesn't want to discuss whether hot coffee results in a hot cup, asserts that the speaker has engaged in the "cherry picking" fallacy, and now redirects the conversation into a discussion of what constitutes cherry picking. In the Wikipedia article (Argument from Fallacy) we see the following description:: "William Lycan identifies the fallacy fallacy as the fallacy "of imputing fallaciousness to a view with which one disagrees but without doing anything to show that the view rests on any error of reasoning". Unlike ordinary fallacy fallacies, which reason from an argument's fallaciousness to its conclusion's falsehood, the kind of argument Lycan has in mind treats another argument's fallaciousness as obvious without first demonstrating that any fallacy at all is present." I've seen this problem in various wiki discussions where genuinely important subjects were dismissed out of hand by a quick reference to a so-called "fallacy". I think this type of fallacy should be included and discussed in this article's list of fallacies. N0w8st8s (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)n0w8st8s

Kettle logic

I don't see kettle logic as a fallacy because wrapping a logical disjunction around apparent contradictions produces an alternative pleading. See my comments in Talk:Kettle logic#Use of Kettle Logic. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Kettle logic. Paradoctor (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

First Line

"A fallacy is an incorrect argument..." ?

Don't think so. It's an invalid argument but it could still be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.135.230 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If you read the rest of the sentence, you'll see that valid arguments can be still be fallacious by dint of being unsound. That is, the argument from premises to conclusion is valid, but the premises fail to be true. This applies to informal fallacies only, of course. Paradoctor (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Recommend clarification or link on "implies"

There is often argument about the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" due to the difference between formal (logical) and colloquial use of the term "imply", as discussed at Correlation does not imply causation#Usage.

Would it be appropriate to provide that information via link, footnote or parenthetical comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrjank (talk • contribs) 2016-12-12T19:31:48 (UTC)

No, because this is not about a fallacy, but about ambiguity. If someone intentionally exploited the ambiguity, that would constitute equivocation, which is already in the list.

Please don't forget to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. If you have questions, please feel free to ask. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I do not see any use of "imply" or "implies" that is unclear in the article. The phrase 'correlation does not imply causation' is not used in this article. There is "Correlation proves causation" (linked to Post hoc ergo propter hoc) and "Association fallacy". If we did have that statement, rather then explaining it here, it would be clarified with examples in the linked article about the specific fallacy. If the person doesn't get it from examples, then the person is never going to get it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

ok, 'imply' is only used in explanation of the earlier "Correlation proves causation" section, not the later "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" section. The former uses imply in the formal sense, whereas the often confused informal or colloquial usage would make that statement appear incorrect (correlation seems to suggest possible causation).Nrjank (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I see it now. I have rephrased it like so. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Logicallyfallacious.com is not a reliable source

It's a page about a self-published book. Please put in only reliable third party mentions of fallacies.--Edittrack121 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of fallacies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep043348.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625122234/http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/acadwrite/logic.html to http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/acadwrite/logic.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160403035310/http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm to http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Complex argument proceeding from a faulty premise

Is there no name for this? E.g. a complicated legal argument that falls apart because an assumption about the wording or interpretation of the law the reasoning cascade is relying upon was incorrect from the very start.

A typical real-world example (at least in a common law system): Party A and Party B had a traffic collision. Party A's driver's license was expired at the time (or A never had one to begin with). B argues A had no right to be on the road and thus is automatically at fault.

This is invalid despite its "common sense" flavor, because there is no statute providing for automatic liability in the event of an expired license; the fault of the accident will be assigned on the basis of what the court accepts as what really happened on the road, i.e. who failed to abide by an actual traffic law governing vehicles in motion. (There would never be such an automatic-liability statute, either, because it would lead to the legally absurd and dangerous result that you'd be effectively legally entitled, as a valid license-holder, to run into anyone on purpose if you happen to know that their license expired; we'd probably have thousands of cases of jilted lovers doing this to their exes.) I think some civil law systems actually apportion a share of blame or liability, regardless of the what-happened facts, to the party driving without a license (I was told that Turkey does this on some kind of "scale of blame" system, by someone who had lived there in the 1980s but was not a native).
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Naturalistic fallacy fallacy

Resolved

Please, do not remove the second instance of the noun fallacy in the entry Naturalistic fallacy fallacy. There is a difference between naturalistic fallacy and naturalistic fallacy fallacy. The former is an invalid inference of ought from is, while the latter is a meta-logical fallacy that has a capacity to falsely declare some valid inferences instances of the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.206.28 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The way to prevent "corrections" is the wrap the entire construction in a {{sic}} template: {{sic|hide=y|reason=This is not a typo; the naturalistic fallacy fallacy and the naturalistic fallacy are different.|''Naturalistic fallacy'' fallacy}}
This has been done in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Appeal to Self-Evident Truth Article

I'll draft up a linked page for this fallacy based on: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/212/Appeal-to-Self-evident-Truth Might take a day or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Squatch347: "Appeal to self evident truth" which you restored after I removed is fake fallacy and it is invented by the commercial website you cited as a source. They didn't mince word in explicitly admitting this;

  "This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found" –source

  The blog is run by one person who identified as Bo Bennet (who is selling his books on the site) and he invented it by synthesizing and emblishing content from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Neither in the SEP no in any other academic sources can this fallacy be found. Thus I removed it. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ammarpad, I'm not sure the site being "commercial" is really a primary reason to dismiss it as a source. While WP's guidelines warns us against using sites primarily related to selling a product, we can still distinguish a site whose commercial activities don't undermine the credibility of the claim. The NYT is a commercial site after all, but is still a valid secondary source. I should also point out that Bo Bennett also has a PhD in psychology and is a member in good standing with the APA, so it isn't as if this is just "some guy" on the internet.

Rather than simply calling it a "fake fallacy" (appeal to self evident truth is obviously a fallacious argument), we should recognize that fallacies often have different names across different sources. Hence why I was going to draw up an article on this fallacy and its different names. This will take a little while since it will likely need to be merged with Ipse dixit or a Bare Assertion Fallacy. Which has multiple sources to support. Regardless, we should come to a consensus here before you just remove information from an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Since your edit was removed you should have wait for consensus first, before restoring it. Second, the fact that he have PhD doesn't give him the authority to invent concept and now use Wikipediato promote his book. This is against core policy WP:NEOLOGISM. The fallacy was invented by him and the website acknowledged that, and no any academy sources else that believed in it's existence. So it is fake in every respect –Ammarpad (talk)

@Squatch347: Please you're yet to answer about this unreliable content and now you continue adding more unrelated thing in order to get it in while shunning the talkpage. Please come and talk here. –Ammarpad (talk)

I think there is a more important problem than WP:NEO, and that is the fact that there is no evidence so far that Bennett's site passes WP:SELFPUBLISH, hence is prima facie not a WP:RS. Lacking this evidence, there would have to be at least a few independent sources defining the term in the same way for the entry to stay. Paradoctor (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Paradoctor:. There's completely no independent reliable sources about it. It was only invented by the owner of the blog who also used the bog to sell his book about fallacies, which was neither edited by panel of experts nor published by academic publisher. This editor is trying to make this source to look like reliable (see his comment above). I am trying to handle this with patience, that's why I didn't revert his recent addition where he joined it with different verifiable content in order to get legitimacy for this. But I saw you removed it, they are completely different, only understanding them thoroughly will show that.–Ammarpad (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Paradoctor, I think you make an excellent point about it being a WP:SElfPublish. The site definitely seems to fall into that category and shouldn't be included as support.

I agree with you that given that definition, this term (Self-Evident Truth) shouldn't be included. The issue, as I see it, is that the action being described is clearly fallacious, and doesn't fall into any other defined fallacy on the page. Essentially what we are talking about is the maintenance of a claim without support or by claiming that it stands for itself. Both actions are pretty similar, and would (imo) be the same fallacy. Perhaps wording the fallacy like this?

• Bare Assertion Fallacy also known as Ipse dixit – A claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.

For sources I would add the first two of the Ipse Dixit article, one refers to Ipse Dixit, the other to Bare Assertion. Would that be an acceptable entry to all here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

No, if you want add that, first use the sources and create Bare Assertion Fallacy article then you can add it later. –Ammarpad (talk)

The Bare Assertion fallacy article already exists and redirects to Ipse Dixit. Do you have any other objections? Ammarpad Squatch347 (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If it exists why it is showing in redlink? –Ammarpad (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Because I capitalized the F and the A, which wiki isn't smart enough to see as the same page. I've corrected that below. Given that, Ammarpad, are there any other concerns?

Bare Assertion fallacy also known as Ipse dixit – A claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism. Squatch347 (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the wording is right. No concern. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Perfect, I'll give Paradoctor a chance to weigh in as well. Thanks for the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squatch347 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Happy editing ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks gents Squatch347 (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Shotgun Argumentation"

I'd like to propose that we review this addition to the page. No citation is offered and it doesn't appear fallacious. Offering a large volume of sources or argumentation doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is incorrect. It is certainly poor form for a debate or discussion, but it doesn't mean that the warrant for the conclusion is invalid.

It would be a fallacy if someone "claimed victory" but that fallacy is described elsewhere.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it.

I'd like to note that "poor form" is a euphemism. The point of using a shotgun is to get a kill even though you're a lousy shot. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Not an unfair note. Squatch347 (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Divine Fallacy

The divine fallacy as stated is a bald combination of two other fallacies, namely an Appeal to Probability combined with an Appeal to Incredulity. To make the statement actually logical, "or vice versa" would have to be appended to the end of the definition, just as it is required with the Appeal to Incredulity upon which it was formulated. Logically, the divine fallacy as stated is a completely one-sided application of the Appeal to Incredulity and as worded automatically assumes opposing views as illogical without proof or evidence to that effect.

A better definition would be "-- arguing that, because something is so incredible/amazing/ununderstandable, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency, or that something claimed as of superior/divine/alien/paranormal agency cannot be true."

This may offend the sensibilities of many, but I find that true logic doesn't support personal bias of any kind. 63.245.154.33 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Curious, do you have any external references to this fallacy? As stated, the argument is definitely fallacious, but I think it might fit in as a special application of an existing listed fallacy. Thanks,

Squatch347 (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Abhorrent Fallacy?

I have come across an argument that certainly seems to be a fallacy but I don't think it's listed here, where a person dismisses an argument due to the person in question considering the arguments in support of a particular action as being dispicable or morally wrong and therefore being unworthy of further consideration.

Does anyone else think this is a fallacy?

I_AM_SHODAN (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean an appeal to consequences? Paradoctor (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Could also be an appeal to ridicule. I think it depends on the phrasing. @I_AM_SHODAN, can you perhaps give us an example of the specific argument being made? Squatch347 (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll try, though it isn't easy without pointing directly to the arguments, it was posted toward the tail end of a long and heated argument:

It was a debate regarding the legality, ethics and morality of the arrest of Mark Meechan AKA Count Dankula:

A poster mentioned that while his mocking may have been in bad taste and controversial it shouldn't have constituted a criminal offense over what is essentially a harmless joke, and that he should've been allowed to make the joke, his opponent considers it a 'grossly offensive' mocking of concentration camp victims and states the suspected fallacy: that 'The arguments in support of a despicable action are unworthy of further consideration.'

If this is insufficient I can point directly to the thread... I'm trying to avoid pointing anyone out though (Probably failed anyway).

I_AM_SHODAN (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that conflates appeal to consequences and pooh-pooh. Paradoctor (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the rebuttal presented (as presented) is a fallacy. Simply dismissing an argument as not worthy of consideration is definitely a pooh-pooh fallacy. It could well be an appeal to consequence of ridicule depending on what the proponent's reasons are. I wouldn't put it into a new fallacy, it seems to fit nicely into the pooh-pooh fallacy. Squatch347 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Kettle Logic"

The list of informal fallacies includes "kettle logic," which, as I understand it, is simply argument in the alternative. I don't see how this is fallacious at all. I suppose it depends on how you phrase it -- if you insist that all of your alternative, inconsistent arguments are true, then I suppose it makes sense to call that fallacious, but only because it's nonsensical. On the other hand, if you say, "I did not borrow your kettle, or, if I did, it was undamaged, or, if it was damaged, it was like that when I got it," there's nothing at all fallacious about that. It may be that you're not certain of each, but logically, if any one of those things is true, the statement as a whole is true. It's very useful for an arguer who isn't sure if he can prove each statement, but has some reason to make each statement. In this example, it may be that I don't believe I borrowed your kettle, but I have no means of proving that absolutely. Perhaps I only have evidence that I don't use a kettle, or that I have had my own kettle since before the accused borrowing. And I know that I treat my things well, and I have witnesses who will testify that I return borrowed items in excellent condition and would not have damaged the kettle.

Arguments in the alternative are perfectly welcome in the legal world, and I see no real reason why they shouldn't be. I feel like I've also heard them made in philosophy, but I'm having trouble thinking of a good example.

So I propose we remove "kettle logic" from the list. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Alternative pleading that constitutes kettle logic is permitted in legal proceedings explicitly despite being a fallacious argument. There are consistent forms of alternative pleading, but those are not kettle logic. Paradoctor (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I still have yet to see an argument that this form of logic is ever fallacious, unless it is phrased incorrectly. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A correct argument is not a fallacy. As for an example, it's in the article: Saying "my dog was tied up" implies "I have a dog". Maintaining at the same time "And I have no dog" means your claims imply a contradiction, which then permits you to prove anything. Paradoctor (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Assuming commonality

Is there a specific name for the fallacious assumption that, because the subject does or thinks something, it is the common method or thought? Such as "No one does that anymore!" because they personally do not? --King Starscream (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be the false consensus effect. Questions like this are usually answered at the WP:REFERENCEDESK. ;) Talk pages are for discussion related to editing the corresponding article. Paradoctor (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It is also a form of Hasty Generalization Fallacy[2] given that the sample size is "1," themselves. Squatch347 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion provable by other means deemed false because a rationale offered by someone was faulty

Resolved

 – Just a case of PEBKAC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be missing that one. In childish terms it's "You said the sky is blue because it's full of sapphires; that's not true, ergo the sky isn't blue." It's extremely common in more subtle forms, especially in political and similar discussion (e.g. rejection of a position with 10 rationales because one of them is questionable; rejection of one with a single premise because the statistics behind it are off by a trivial amount; rejection of an entire system because one aspect of it is unreliable even though the rest is working and the isolated problem is fixable; etc.) It's even common on Wikipedia: "We should keep [some trivia that violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE] in this article; you argued to remove it per WP:Notability, but that only applies to whether a subject can have its own article not whether it can be included in an article."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems conceptually similar to but not exactly an example or consequence of the more basic affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. It actually appears to be one of the numerous variations of red herring, or at very least among the relevance fallacies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Argument from fallacy Paradoctor (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Gah! That's it; I was looking too far down the page (I'm used to the ones near the top being the technical ones from maths and philosophy). Derp.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think its a form of denying the antecedent formal falacy. The common textbook version is; if it rains, then lawn is wet. It hasn't rained, therefore the lawn isn't wet. (Obviously the lawn could have been watered). Formally, If A, then B. Not A, therefore Not B.

In the example it is something like If the sky is full of sapphires it is blue. It isn't full of sapphires, therefore it isn't blue.

Squatch347 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess that would also apply to that particular case, but argument from fallacy, right near the top (insert sheepish grin here) was the generalized one I'd was looking for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Fully general counter-arguments

Interested to hear opinions about whether this stuff should be included http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/13/arguments-from-my-opponent-believes-something/ I feel like I could make the case based on sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishtodd1 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. WP:SELFPUBLISHED by a non-expert. If you can find reliable sources defining the term, please do. Paradoctor (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that will be hard because a lot of these are individual applications of listed fallacies (ad hom, appeal to authority, etc) as well so it probably means finding well regarded secondary sources will be hard (they will tend to call them by the accepted names) and that we would have to "dedup" them internally as well. Squatch347 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thrif's proposed reorganization

User Thrif recently made some organizational changes the page that I think need to be discussed here for consensus before being fully implemented. He would like to move the appeal to authority, broken window, definist, naturalist, and slippery slope fallacies to the "conditional or questionable" fallacies section. His edit explanation seems to imply that all informal fallacies fall into this category and should be moved as well.

I'm open to the appeal to authority and slippery slope fallacies being moved, though they are generally recognized in the secondary sources in the sections they are currently in.

The others, however, should definitely remain as they are. The broken window fallacy, for example, is not questionable and is always a fallacy, ditto the naturalist fallacy. Squatch347 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to know how the literature defines "conditional" and "questionable" when describing fallacies. We shouldn't invent our own categorizations. We could have sections for arguments that are

• Disputed when the sources disagree about whether the argument is fallacious at all
• Atypical when the sources disagree about how to classify the fallacy
• Unknown when the sources do not classify the fallacy at all

Either way, placement should be decided by RSs. Paradoctor (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I think leaving them as is for sub-categorization best reflects how they are described by the RSs currently listed. Disputed would work if there are conflicting fallacies, not sure we really have any on there that fall into it though. Squatch347 (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. My point is that all informal fallacies are essentially conditional. Hence they require no section which marks any given informal fallacy as especially conditional -- the category is redundant. I could actually give reasons why the so-called "broken window fallacy", which is more correctly known as the broken window parable, is indeed fallacious under certain circumstances. Similarly, the naturalist fallacy -- or the appeal to nature-- is also conditional. Unless I'm mistaken in my interpretation, isn't the appeal to nature responsible for, say, certain ideas such as natural selection? Eager to hear your thoughts. I would also like to hear an example in which an informal fallacy is necessarily unconditional, because, as I said, that's why they're informal. They are applicable only to an extent. Hence, for example, the fallacy fallacy. And let me state for the record.. no other taxonomy appears to divide informal fallacies in this manner. It's just Wikipedia. I find this incredibly curious. On a final note, if anyone could provide a consensus of reliable sources which move in favor of this categorisation I'd greatly appreciate it. :) - Thrif (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thrif, thank you for expanding on your edit explanation. Looking through the edits again I think I was more concerned with the idea that all fallacies were conditional. I'm not sure I agree with that and will address it a bit more below. With that said, given your explanation that you are looking to merge the "conditional" section out of existence given that it isn't replicated in literature, I think you re-ordering makes sense and Paradoctor is correct that we shouldn't invent our own categorizations. I think most of your edits make a good deal of sense though I'd like to propose a couple of small changes and get your feedback.

Appeal to authority -> Faulty Generalizations since it is based on a generalization that any authority applies to any subject. We should probably note that the fallacy is conditional based on the relevance of the authority being invoked (not that I personally agree, but that is quite common in the sources currently).

Broken window fallacy -> Leave where Thrif put it.

Definist fallacy -> Move to Improper premise. This is a form of circular reasoning. AND/OR move under Equivocation. Both would work tbh.

The ends justify the means -> I'm ok with striking this one. I'm not sure it is a fallacy so much as a moral system (utilitarianism). I don't think it belongs here and certainly isn't sourced.

Naturalistic fallacy-> Leave as Thrif put it.

Slippery slope-> I think this should go under Questionable Cause given where it is generally listed on other fallacy compilations and the definition offered by the source. If it remains as Thrif moved it, no major objection.

This section might be less relevant to the question of where we moved it, but I wanted to address it in case we do move it because I think we might need to address the conditions noted in the sources that I think led to this organizational structure. Several of these are not fallacies in special circumstances and those circumstances are usually covered in the definitions of the fallacies. If we agree with some kind of re-order, we should also be sure to include those criteria in the definitions. With that said, I"m not sure that I agree with your statement that all informal fallacies are conditional. How would an appeal to fear be conditional? What conditions would make it not a fallacy? I think what you are describing is when an argument is incorrectly ascribed to a fallacy rather than there being some condition that exempts it from being a fallacy.

I think a good example of a conditional fallacy (I'm not saying we need a category about it, but we should note its 'conditionality' as we seem to do in parts) would be an appeal to authority fallacy. It is fallacious when the authority does not have the requisite skill set or when the conclusion is overly definitive. Take something like; "Prof. Stevens says that particle exchange explains this phenomenon. Therefore particle exchange most likely explains this phenomenon." If Prof. Stevens is a particle physicist, it isn't fallacious. IE in the condition that the authority is relevant, this isn't a fallacy. If Prof. Stevens is a botonist, this is a fallacy, since his training provides no warrant to hold the premise is true.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"How would an appeal to fear be conditional?" What if I told you you're going to die if you don't run away? This could be true if you recently snitched on a mafia don. Or it could be just a ploy to make you give up your dinner reservation so I can have your table.

"the fallacy is conditional based on the relevance of the authority being invoked" I think I see the problem. The way you use it, "conditional" means "informal". An argument that is invalid regardless of facts is a formal fallacy. If facts can make a difference, we have an informal fallacy.

That being said, I think we should nuke the "Conditional or questionable" section. Paradoctor (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Para, I agree with you about removing the conditional or questionable section. How do you feel about the suggested moves I posted in my last response?

To address your conditional scenario though, the statement is true because of its underlying warrant (that I snitched on a mafia don or not), not because I am afraid. In the case that I had been a snitch, you aren't appealing to the fear, you are appealing to the behavioral pattern of the don. Hence, it wouldn't be an appeal to fear fallacy.

Squatch347 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems we have consensus about removing the "Conditional or questionable" section, so the remaining question is where to put the orphaned entries.

• Broken window: Since we all are ok with putting it in Informal, unsorted, I'm going boldly ahead and do it right now.
• Naturalistic: Same as Broken window, but since it already lives under Red herring, I'll just remove it from "Conditional or questionable"
• Slippery slope: Since you have no major objection, I'll put it under Informal, unsorted.
• End vs. means: Presuming that Thrif won't object, I'll nuke it. If I turn out to be wrong, it should go back to Informal, unsorted.
• Appeal to authority, Definist: Should both go under Informal, unsorted, unless explicitly categorized by RS with one of the subcategories proposed, but I'll wait for feedback before proceeding with these two.

Paradoctor (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Good changes. I think Appeal to Authority already resides under Red-Herring. I'm ok with leaving it there. None of the sources I could find lists the Definist fallacy under anything, so I think a safer categorization would be, as you suggest, informal/unsorted. Squatch347 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, appeal to authority is already at Red herring. Missed that somehow. I'd say that's a wrap. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Fallacy that disagreement is itself a problem

Is there name for this fallacy (or is it a sub-type of an existing one)? It comes in many flavors (some of which may be tinged with argument to authority, argument to ridicule, credentialism, and some other fallacies):

• "By continuing to argue against this law being just, you're simply proving you're on the side of the criminals."
• "Refusing to accept that this well-accepted premise that all the experts agree on applies in this case just shows you don't know what you're talking about."
• "Questioning the Bible is heresy, and heretics are agents of the devil, so your tongue will be cut out and you will burn at the stake."
• "Contradicting the police should itself be a crime."
• On-Wikipedia example, falsely assuming that consensus can't change: "An RfC decided that already in 2007, so you're being anti-consensus and having a WP:CIR problem by bringing it up again."

It's basically an argument to authority, of sorts, in which the opposing premise (or the person making it) is claimed to be/have the authority, rather than some third-party being the alleged authority cited. Has elements of might-makes-right (and thus also of argumentum ad baculum).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

What is the logical form of "disagreement is itself a problem"?

"You disagree, therefore you are wrong?" If so, then none of the examples match the form, because they all give a reason for the particular instance of disagreement being wrong.

OTOH, reading it as "All disagreement is wrong, therefore you are wrong" would make sound reasoning fallacious, in case there is disagreement about the conclusion.

OTGH, "The matter has already been settled, therefore any challenge to it is wrong" matches only some of the examples, so we still have no overarching concept unifying the examples. Paradoctor (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

From the examples, 1) "guilt by association", a form of circumstantial ad hominem similar to reductio ad Hitlerum, or Godwin's Law, and opposed by "honor by association", 2) "appeal to conventional wisdom/people/authority/force", or argumentum ad consensus gentium/populum/verecundiam/baculum, as mentioned above, or 3) any of the following; "appeal to closure" (Fait Accompli), "status quo bias" ("If it ain't broke, don't fix it"), "standard version fallacy" (similar to "Othering"), "non-recognition fallacy" or "non-cooperation fallacy" ("The Pout"), "appeal to inertia" ("Stay the course"), "taboo" (a form of dogmatism), "invincible ignorance", ("I don't want to hear it!"), or even "blind loyalty" ("Nuremberg Defense"). There's little context so it's not clear which of these apply. There's no named fallacy (which I'm aware of) specifially arguing that argument itself is invalid; its an autocratic (ipse dixit) position rather than a logical one and therefore unlikely to be useful or popular. The "logical" form of "disagreement is itself a problem" is simply "x is y". - Thrif (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Dropping a few more related links: Proof by assertion, Proof by intimidation, Appeal to the stone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess that "disagreement is wrong" was an overgeneralization; rather, they're all characterized by "disagreement with this is itself a wrong because of the acceptance level it has, or that those who hold that position on it have". It amounts to "How dare you question the law/the academic consensus/the scriptures/elected or appointed officials/your elders/etc." It is a denial of reasoning, so perhaps a form of ipse dixit, in that it has nothing to do with the substance and only with the arguer's audacity/recalictrance and alleged ignorance or iconoclasm, versus everyday trust/faith in what is being challenged. As I noted in the OP, it's definitely often tinged with argument to authority and other fallacies, but it isn't really the argument to authority. It seems weird that this particular common thread doesn't seem to have a name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, here's another one that seems to happen a lot!

The one where you have a choice between the option that is expensive but reliable, or the option that is cheap but ends up being astronomically expensive to run, and you choose the cheap one. It could be called the "Boeing Light Rail Vehicle" fallacy, or the "Clarke Air Conditioners" fallacy, or the "Cary Library Stairs" fallacy.

Story for the first one: In the 70's MBTA wanted to replace the PCC streetcars, and they could have bought the Type 6's, of which there is a wooden mock-up at Seashore, but those were too expensive, so they got the Boeings instead. They were constantly breaking down, and T had to bring many of them out of service to cannibalize for parts, which they hid in the subway at night, until a reporter found out. Then, the vehicles started turning up in the yards, probably because they ran out of room in the subway. The PCCs had to remain in service until 1985.

Story for the second one: When the Town of Lexington was building the Jonas Clarke middle school, they could decide between HVAC or the "cheaper" electric heaters. They chose the electric heaters, which were astronomically expensive to run. So they eventually replaced them with HVAC.

Story for the third one: It snows a lot in the winter in Lexington, and all the salt on the roads is transferred to shoes, which really wears out the wooden stairs at the Cary Library. They have to be replaced every few years. All that could be avoided if they bought stone steps instead, but those "are too expensive."

So which will it be? World Metro (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

[Source for the first one: our article on Boeing LRV] [Source for the second and third ones: my grandma told me, she is very smart]

Imputing emotion

I've looked through the list, but I couldn't find anything that specifically deals with the fallacy of imputing emotion onto the opposing side. Essentially, the fallacy is "Our detractors speak out of fear/anger/hatred/jealousy etc., therefore they are wrong and we are right.". I used to see it a lot in the form of banner ads ("Mom finds simple remedy for X, scientists are furious!"), and there's also a specific example here ("Star Citizen matters BECAUSE it is big, because it is a bold dream. It is something everyone else is scared to try. You didn’t back Star Citizen because you want what you’ve seen before. You’re here and reading this because we are willing to go big, to do the things that terrify publishers.").

Does anyone have an idea what this is called? Silver hr (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence

Shouldn't this be listed as an informal fallacy? The anecdotal evidence Wikipedia page itself says it is one yet I can't find any mention of it here.

By itself the use of anecdotal evidence isn't necessarily a fallacy. When used to make an overly broad conclusion that would be an example, imo, of a hasty generalization fallacy. Squatch347 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Drop in the bucket

I am unable to find the "Drop in the bucket/drop in the ocean" fallacy, is it listed under a different name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenemo (talk • contribs) 13:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, we have discussed that topic before and the resolution was that there weren't reliable secondary sources describing the fallacy. Looking at the reddit link I think it would fall under either an appeal to popularity or appeal to consequences fallacy depending on exactly how it is formed. IE if the user said "this won't have an effect, therefore it is false" that would be a pretty clear appeal to consequences fallacy. Squatch347 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the fallacy of composition.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess that "a drop in the bucket" could be considered to be a type of fallacy of composition, if phrased as "No individual throwing plastic in the ocean will have a meaningful impact on the amount of plastic in the ocean. Therefore, all individuals can throw plastic in the ocean without it having a meaningful impact"? I still feel like This expression is common enough to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, perhaps add an example to fallacy of composition? Stenemo 09:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenemo (talk • contribs)

Lede doesn't match contents

In the lede, we divide fallacies into formal and informal, We don't explain either.

We subdivide Informal fallacies as follows:

• Informal:
  • linguistic,
  • relevance through omission,
  • relevance through intrusion, and
  • relevance through presumption

We don't subdivide Formal fallacies.

In the contents, we have:

1. Formal fallacies
   1. Propositional fallacies
   2. Quantification fallacies
   3. Formal syllogistic fallacies
2. Informal fallacies
   1. Improper premise
   2. Faulty generalizations
   3. Questionable cause
   4. Relevance fallacies
      1. Red herring fallacies

The article lede also has a long block of text discussing how Fallacies could instead classified by process.

In the lede for Formal fallacies, we have:

• Appeal to probability
• Argument from fallacy
• Base rate fallacy
• Conjunction fallacy
• Masked-man fallacy

In the lede for Informal fallacies, we have a very long list of fallacies.

This is suboptimal.

1. The article lede should explain, briefly, what a formal fallacy is and what an informal fallacy is.
2. The subdivision of Informal fallacies in the article lede should match the table of contents. (And, optionally, could be moved to the lede for that section.
3. The discussion of the alternate classification structure should be in its own section, with just a single sentence mention in the lede.
4. The lede for Formal fallacies should explain why Formal fallacies are subdivided into Propositional, Quantification and Formal syllogistic. (Or we should restructure the section.)
5. The fallacies listed in the Formal fallacies lede should be moved into one of the its subsections
6. The lede for Informal fallacies should explain why Informal fallacies are subdivided into Improper premise, Faulty generalizations, Questionable cause, and Relevance fallacies. (Or we should restructure the section.)
7. Red Herring should not be a heading.
8. The fallacies listed in the Informal fallacies lede should be moved into one of the its subsections

All IMHO, of course. :-)

Ben Aveling 02:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

How to subdivide informal fallacies

I agree with the above comment. In fact, I would go further and say that the list of informal fallacies is a mess. The trouble I see with attempting to impose some sort of order, though, is that I have seen informal fallacies subdivided in different ways, and do not know if there is a single standard we could appeal to. Before I go poking around for one, does anyone know of such a standard?

GeoMarxBMN (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Burden of Proof

How is there no mention of this one as specified: here, here, and here? RobP (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance is on the list in the section List of fallacies#Relevance fallacies. Burden of Proof is not a fallacy per se. It is not wrong to say X might be true even though there is insufficient evidence to support it, but it is a fallacy to say X is true without said evidence and to claim that others must disprove X. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding the “might be” to the formulation is muddying the waters. Making most any logical fallacy conditional destroys the formulation as a fallacy. I believe the way it is used - as you described in your second version - does make it a logical fallacy, and sites such as I provided links to DO treat it as such. Are you not using original research to keep it off this list in that case? RobP (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Right and the second version is the fallacy Argument from ignorance, the formal name of burden of proof when it is a fallacy. If we were to add it someone will just take it out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Merging fallacy articles

Almost every fallacy on this list has an article but a large proportion of them consist of little more than a definition, (occasionally) an etymology and some unsourced examples. Many fail to establish the need for an independent article any more than the average video game character and so it seems more productive to merge them into this list, where they can be placed in context with each other, given how much they often overlap. Some examples being:

• Argumentum ad lazarum, Argumentum ad crumenam
• Appeal to fear, Appeal to flattery, Appeal to pity etc. (merge to Appeal to emotion)
• Accident (fallacy)
• Argumentum ad baculum
• Masked-man fallacy

I'd rather not go through the effort of tagging all these articles and starting a merge discussion if the consensus is already in favor of keeping them from the start, so I'd like to hear some thoughts from people who've been more involved with these articles than me. CheeseBuffet (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles

Hi,

Request for comment discussion has been initiated @ Talk:List of former Muslims#Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles and includes reference to this article there in.

Those interested can express their views there in.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The Less-is-More Effect

This may have a better name, but I don't know what it is. Came across this while reading , and none of the existing falacies seemed to cover it. 'The Less-is-More Effect' is the author's term.

The effect is knowing less about something can result in more accurate decisions (the effect is Less-is-More, the falacy I guess would be 'Believing More-is-More'?)

Goldstein and Gigerenzer demonstrated this as The Recognition Heuristic in , which contains this example.

Given a test on which of a pair of German cities had a larger population, a person who knew of few German cities would do better than one who knew many. The person who had heard of only a few cities could just choose any name they recognised, and they'd likely be correct that it was the larger city (because they wouldn't have heard of any small cities). A person who knew many cities would struggle to choose the correct ones unless they also had detailed knowledge of the cities size.

The book contains several other examples where more information leads to worse decision making, eg. a simple leverage ratio is a better predictor of bank stability than a complex risk model that uses multiple factors; When predicting if a customer would purchase airline tickets again, a simple rule-of-thumb 'If a customer hasn't made a purchase in the last 9 months they won't purchase again' was more successful in predicting customer purchasing than a mathematical model which included this factor along with others (77% accurate prediction vs 74%)

Proposed for inclusion.

90.254.202.181 (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Argument from Fallacy

The argument is that a conclusion can be true even if the argument for it is false, but this seems to be a logical fallacy. If I am arguing that apples are the best fruit because "apples are the best", it can be stated determineately that my conclusion is false because it is based on just my opinion. This 'fallacy' seems like a cop out by the 'professionals' who consider Freud and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:B223:650F:9607:CA:C8E2:B00 (talk)

Thank you for your interest in this article. We do not publish original research on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. If you find a source that discusses this idea in a scholarly source let us know and we may add it to the article. Also see WP:NOTAFORUM Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

To save the IP some time, I would point out the wording. The conclusion can be true does not necessarily mean it is true. The problem with the example is that the conclusion "apples are best" is a statement without a truth value because it is, by definition an opinion statement (which don't have truth values). At the risk of violating WP:NOTAFORUM let me give an example where the statement we are making is valid. P1: No man is mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. P3: Socrates is mortal. The argument is invalid (not properly structured), but the conclusion is still true. Squatch347 (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"Kafka trap" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kafka trap and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 1#Kafka trap until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"Kakfatrapping"

Edit in question (diffs): Kafkatrapping – a sophistical rhetorical device in which any denial by an accused person serves as evidence of guilt.

@Guarapiranga: you have restored this entry to this article despite not finding any appropriate sources for it. The three citations you give are to opinion pieces in non-scholarly media. I don't think any is a source suitable for Wikipedia. Reading any more of the text should have thrown up red flags. The second link is an opinion piece, dismissing whole fields of scholarly research, in something called the "Financial Post". If you think this is at all appropriate as a source for Wikipedia, you need to go back to basics and learn about Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing. You need to learn that there are people who have a problem with legitimate scholarship and will try to deny it, and there are publication venues that will air those opinions; it doesn't mean we on Wikipedia have to treat their opinions as knowledge. If these three junk citations are all that you've come up with after a thorough search for the term "Kafkatrapping", and there's no mention in the literature on reasoning and fallacies, then the sensible conclusion is that "Kafkatrapping" is not an established logical fallacy. The entry needs to disappear from the list. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

1. you have restored this entry to this article despite not finding any appropriate sources for it.
   I did it bc you said you removed the entry bc you deemed the ref there a junk site. I thought the additional refs sorted the sourcing problem.
2. The three citations you give are to opinion pieces in non-scholarly media.
   Not only scholarly media are deemed RS at WP, and not all is either. In fact, most RS are not scholarly, and most scholarly media are not RS. Further, plenty of content on WP is backed up by opinion pieces, if published by RS, and that's backed up by the very policy you cited (did you learn it?):

   Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors (WP:REPUTABLE)

   The ref you deemed a junk site in the entry you removed was authored by Wendy McElroy, who is at least notable enough to have her own WP article.
3. I don't think any is a source suitable for Wikipedia.
   What we, as editors, think of the sources is pretty much irrelevant before the criteria you yourself linked.
4. The second link is an opinion piece, dismissing whole fields of scholarly research, in something called the "Financial Post". If you think this is at all appropriate as a source for Wikipedia, you need to go back to basics and learn about Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing.
   The source of an opinion piece—which again, as aforementioned, is not excluded from WP:RS—is its author, which in this case is Bruce Pardy, professor of law at Queen’s University in Canada and Senior Fellow with the Fraser Institute.
5. The 3rd ref I cited, which you didn't address, is penned by Jeremy Seekings and Nicoli Nattrass, professor of economics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, co-director of the Institute for Communities and Wildlife in Africa and founding director of the Centre for Social Science Research, and also notable enough to have its own WP article.

— Guarapiranga ☎ 08:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Guarapiranga: That you think we should treat opinions as reliable because their author has a Wikipedia article, or because they founded something that has a Wikipedia article, shows some sort of misunderstanding. That you seem to think Wikipedia's mission is to aggregate views and opinions is also a red flag. It's very strange to see these arguments being used in a Wikipedia discussion on reliable sources. There is a specific section of the RS guidance on op-eds that distinguishes editorials and op-eds from factual content, the former being "rarely reliable for statements of fact". That you have three op-eds, and that some authors have academic posts in other fields, doesn't improve the situation. The policy is quite clear that opinion pieces in newspapers can't be used for statements of fact which is how you have used them. In the quote you yourself provided, it states that reliable sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What kind of fact-checking do you think is applied to op-eds in these publications?

Let's also talk about the disconnect between the topic of the sources and the use to which you put them. There is a huge literature of books, journals and even specialist databases that deal with fallacies: you haven't been able to find any mention in that literature, so you go to academics in law, economics, and... somebody who has written some books. If the author is an expert, but not in the relevant topic, then their opinion is irrelevant to establishing fact for Wikipedia. If you're using the person's expertise rather than the venue of publication to establish reliability, then note "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications".

Note also that two of your three sources don't even describe Kafkatrapping as a fallacy. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've posted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, hoping to get a third perspective. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You'll get more people willing to help if you post the sources and edit in question at the top of your informal-rfc. I took the liberty. First off, informal fallacies are generally stupid silly rhetorical nonsense that nobody seriously cares about. Fallacies like all the ones having to do with being a stupid jerk are a socio-linguistic phenomenon, not a logical/formal one, so having "expertise" on the subject enough to coin a new fallacy is really just a matter of being popular. And since we're not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, if a few isolated people insist on using this term and there's no evidence of it breaking into the mainstream, I don't see why it should go into an "informal" list like this. I did find a few more mentions of it, including its supposed origins in a 2010 blog post. Then there's James Lindsay and Robin DiAngelo of the alt-Right who feature the term in their respective anti-CRT books. The politics itself doesn't really matter here – Burke writes the criticism of DiAngelo's book, and is also quoted in the Maverick article above for an earlier article in which Burke says DiAngelo herself makes the kafkatrap fallacy, among others. If there's evidence this particular argument of the debate were popular that would be one thing, but apart from this insular group of people yelling at each other about the issue of the month and using each other's terminology against each other, I'm not sure the term "kafkatrap" has gotten any traction elsewhere. I should note one of the New Discourses blog posts links the Wiktionary definition, which was made in 2018 (so predating all this crap). WP:CITOGENESIS should always be a potential concern, including when Wikipedia gives its seal of authority on some insignificant transient fad with its inclusion in a silly list like this.

My point should be obvious by now. Cut the chaff. And if it's not in OED it shouldn't even by on Wiktionary IMO – we're not UrbanDictionary. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• FYI, "something called the "Financial Post" was Canada's major financial newspaper, before it was transformed into the National Post. I would avoid the argument "Well I've never heard of it so it can't be a reliable source." TFD (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

References

"See also" section / subjects to be added

List of fallacies / See Also:

1. religion
2. religiosity
3. religiosity and intelligence
4. religion non congruence bias: cherry picking on what rules you will obide by, and others not so much and you'll just take the penality to be forgiven, eg not eating pork, but drinking alcohol as a pig and smoking as a Turc

SvenAERTS (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

List of synonyms

This auricle is a LIST - nowhere else is there a list of (antiquated to modern) English "borrowed" expression. Latin is a vital part of formal English (English grammar which does not exist according to Otto Jespersen) "custom and practice" demands this list be resurrected, as a vital ¿no? regards, Timpo (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Timpo: Moved here from my talk page. Paradoctor (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, synonyms should be mentioned in their respective entries, if at all. A separate list only makes it harder for readers to find the entry they are looking for. Paradoctor (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)