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

What is Tradition?

 + JMJ What Is Tradition? The basic premise, from my perspective, is that what was taught before cannot be contradicted by the 'present' magisterium, only deepened and expanded upon. I recall the Roman theologians called the SSPX protestants while the SSPX called them modernists.  I believe this was all surrounding the concept of Traditon. SSPX's Understanding of Tradition One accusation made against the SSPX is that they don't have a correct understanding of 'Tradition'.  This is how the SSPX understands Tradition: I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense t...

SSPX.ca: What is the position of the SSPX on Vatican II???

 + JMJ With all the mis-information about the SSPX rejecting the Second Vatican Council, I thought it would be useful to publish an article that focuses on the real issues that the SSPX has identified. Update: Why Did the SSPX Consecrate Bishops? ( Neither Schismatic, Nor Disobedient link ) In the linked document the SSPX outlined the key motivation and core issues with Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium (see above link for full document): 4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself  In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council. Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishop...

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

 + JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din.  This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations,  the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer  of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...

Thoughts on the Thoughts of a former SSPX priest

 + JMJ Well Gary Campbell, former SSPX Priest and now laicised has posted a new article on WherePeterIs. https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-of-a-former-sspx-priest-on-the-july-1-consecrations/ These words stuck out: Heck, they have built a five-star hotel, wine bar, and Walmart on the opposite bank of the Rubicon! They are not in danger of entering a state of schism, for they are  already  in a state of schism. I believe he doth protest too much. All the actual facts indicate that the SSPX was not in a state of schism before July 1st and an examination of the decree of excommunication highlights the either ineptitude of those in charge or a desire to leave the barn door open. The chasm between an act of disobedience and act of schism remains just what is has always been - an inconvenient barrier that person(s) in Rome seek to bridge but appear incapable of succeeding. The SSPX re-stated that they recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and feel obliged by conscience...

The News is an Addiction ...

 + JMJ People seem to be mesmerised by train wrecks.   They just can't turn away as the disaster creeps forward along train tracks towards the crossing where a car, truck, bus, trailer awaits its destruction. Trads have been watching the train wreck that is this crisis of the Catholic Church for decades. The trade war between the Canada and the US has reminded me that the news is addictive.   The first time I was addicted what from 2009 to  2014 when I was closely following the Rome / SSPX discussions.  I was at work watching a live-stream as Bishop Fellay disappeared into the Vatican. The lead-up to this moment had been intense as the 'resistance' got freaked out and the cultural cracks between doctrine and conspiracy theory widened. In the decade since then other things have emerged, wars, rumours of wars, conspiracies, celebrity Catholics etc. Now we have a new addiction and its name is Trump. Lately, no matter how much I try, I find myself wonderin...