Logical fallacies

Listing every single logical fallacy would mean cataloging hundreds of subtle variations, but they generally fall into a few core families based on where the logic breaks down.

Here is a comprehensive breakdown of the most common formal and informal logical fallacies, organized by how they attempt to trick us.

1. Fallacies of Relevance (Red Herrings)

These introduce irrelevant information to distract from the actual argument.

• Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person): Attacking the opponent's character, motive, or traits instead of engaging with their argument.

• Tu Quoque (Appeal to Hypocrisy): Deflecting criticism by pointing out that the accuser is also guilty of it ("You do it too!").

• Straw Man: Oversimplifying, exaggerating, or completely misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to knock down.

• Red Herring: Introducing a completely unrelated topic to divert attention away from the original issue.

• Genetic Fallacy: Judging an argument as either good or bad based solely on where it comes from (its origin) rather than its current merits.

2. Component Fallacies (Structural Errors)

These are errors in the way the argument is built or structured.

• Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): The premise of the argument assumes the truth of the conclusion it is trying to prove.

• False Dilemma / Dichotomy (Either-Or Fallacy): Presenting two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

• Slippery Slope: Arguing without evidence that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of negative events.

• Hasty Generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion based on a small or unrepresentative sample size.

• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Faulty Causality): Claiming that because event Y followed event X, event X must have caused event Y.

• Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Correlation vs. Causation): Assuming that because two things happen together, one causes the other.

• Texas Sharpshooter: Cherry-picking a cluster of data points to suit your argument while ignoring the rest of the dataset.

3. Fallacies of Ambiguity (Language Tricks)

These look like good arguments on the surface but rely on sneaky shifts in language or meaning.

• Equivocation: Using a double meaning or an ambiguous term in more than one sense within the same argument.

• Fallacy of Composition: Assuming that what is true for a part must also be true for the whole.

• Fallacy of Division: Assuming that what is true for the whole must also be true for its individual parts.

• No True Scotsman: Modifying the definition of a term or group on the fly to exclude a counterexample that disproves your claim.

4. Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumptions (Faulty Appeals)

These rely on a lack of actual evidence, replacing it with social pressure or flawed premises.

• Argumentum ad Populum (Bandwagon Appeal): Arguing that a claim is true or good simply because a lot of people believe or do it.

• Appeal to False Authority: Using an authority figure's opinion on a subject outside of their actual expertise.

• Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance): Arguing that a claim is true simply because it hasn't been proven false (or vice versa).

• Loaded Question: Asking a question that has a presumption built into it, so that it cannot be answered without appearing guilty.

The Fallacy Fallacy: It's important to remember that just because someone uses a logical fallacy in their argument, it doesn't automatically mean their conclusion is false. It just means they haven't proven it logically.