Skip to main content

Logical Fallacies

My wife pointed out that knowing the basic fallacies that can be encountered in a discussion / argument would be useful.

Here's the list we summarized from 'The Fallacy Detective' and other sources.





#1 What is a Fallacy?
An error in logic. A mistake in thinking.
#2 Red Herring Fallacy
The introduction of an irrelevant point.
#3 Ad Hominem (to the man)
Attacking the other person’s character or reason’s for believing something instead of replying to his argument.
#4 Genetic Fallacy
Saying the argument is no good because of where it began, how it began or who thought of it.
#5 Tu Quoque (you too)
Dismissing someone’s viewpoint on an issue because they are not a good example of carrying it out
#6 Faulty Appeal to Authority
An appeal to someone who has no special knowledge in the area being discussed.
#7 Appeal to the People
Claiming the viewpoint is correct just because many other people agree with it.
#8 Straw Man
Changing or exaggerating an opponent’s argument to make it easier to refute.
#9 Making an Assumption
Taking something for granted, or accepting as true without proof.
#10 Circular Reasoning
An argument which says that P is true because Q is true and Q is true because P is true.because Q=P.
#11 Equivocation
Changing the meaning of a word in the middle of an argument.
#12 Loaded Question
          When someone asks two questions, but one is hidden behind the other.
#13 Part-to-Whole
What is true of part of something must be true of the whole thing together.
#14 Whole-to-Part
What is true of something as a whole must be true of each of its parts.
#15 Either-Or
Thinking we must choose between 2 things when we really have more choices.
#16 Generalization
Making broad comments about a group of people or kinds of things.
#17 Hasty Generalization
Generalizing about a group based upon a small or poor sample.
#18 Analogy
Assuming that because 2 or more items are the same in some things, they will be the same in others.
#19 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Since A happened before B, then A caused B.
#20 Proof by Lack of Evidence
Claiming something is true because nobody has given evidence that it isn’t.
#21 Manipulative Propaganda
Playing with our emotions in order to make us agree.
#22 Appeal to Fear Propaganda
Someone makes you fear the consequences of not doing what he wants.
#23 Appeal to Pity Propaganda
Someone makes you act out of pity.
#24 Bandwagon Propaganda
Pressuring us to do something because many other people are doing it.
#25 Exigency Propaganda
Pressuring you to do something only because there is a time limit.
#26 Repetition Propaganda
Repeating a message loudly and very often so that it will be believed.
#27 Transfer Propaganda
Getting people to transfer feelings about one thing to another unrelated thing.
#28 Snob Appeal Propaganda
Persuading others to use a product because it will make them better than others.
#29 Appeal to Tradition
Persuading others to use or do something only because others did it in the past.
#30 Appeal to High Tech
Persuading others to get something only because it is the latest thing.







Comments

  1. This is a great start, just found the link through AQ. Recognition of fallacies is the first step to having a productive argument. I hope many catholic gentlemen will recognize this and bring thought provoking discussion to the content of this site. An organization called The Teaching Company has an excellent DVD series on argumentation that is an Aug 101 college class. It might help in your efforts to evangelize the N. O. attendees, you might create links to sources that would help the mechanics of the discussions. I look forward to refering my N.O. family members and friends to this site.

    God Bless

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's another website featuring logical fallacies:

    http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies.htm
    http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...