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

Sedevacantism and Heresy

+ JMJ I've observed three core reactions during this crisis of the Catholic Church. The Pope can't be wrong, therefore this is the New Springtime The Pope is infallible in certain conditions and there is a problem with many things that have been said, done and written, during and after the Second Vatican Council (even in the Council doc). The Pope can't be wrong, this stuff is wrong, therefore he isn't Pope. Of course there are a spectrum of responses in between, but these are the key elements. The 1st group holds the words of the Pope et al as impeccable. Here, let me get you a Koran to kiss... The 3rd group holds that they've all been heretics and lost their office.  There is also a spectrum within this group.   One answer is that they are very poor judges of heresy.  The link below provides some reasoned thought that, I'm happy to say, is completely consistent with Church Teaching. Canon law blog: Its not impossible just very diff...

What does it mean "I'm a Traditional Catholic"?

+ JMJ I was visiting with a friend the other day when he said: "I'm a traditionalist". This surprised me because, while I could imagine him saying he was a "conservative or faithful Catholic", I didn't really think that the "traditionalist" label would stick. This got me to to thinking about what it means, or should mean when a person shakes you hand and says: "Hi, I'm a Traditional Catholic".

Rome and SSPX - Version 2026 Part 2

 + JMJ Part 2 Detailed Synopsis and Timeline (ChatGPT) At this point, I took the shortcut of uploading all of my previous links and the latest SSPX and Rome links to ChatGPT. This way we’ll see how ChatGPT interprets the world as presented on the internet. P^3 Briefing Memo Subject: Rome–SSPX Relations and Planned Episcopal Consecrations (July 1, 2026) Prepared for: Ecclesial / Academic / Media Briefing Date: February 2026 Issue Overview The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has announced its intention to consecrate new bishops on July 1, 2026 , potentially without a papal mandate . The Holy See has acknowledged ongoing talks with the SSPX and stated its desire to avoid rupture, but has not granted approval nor outlined canonical consequences. The situation revives unresolved tensions dating to 1988 and raises questions about schism, authority, and doctrinal continuity. Background Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX seeks to preserve pre-Vat...

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...