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

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...

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

Spiritual Journey Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Extracts

+ JMJ I have posted these two chapters to provide context for the quote of: It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith. P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.ca Chapter II The Perfections of God We ought to remember during this entire contemplation of God that we must apply all that is said of God to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from God. We cannot separate the Christian religion from Jesus Christ, Who is God, and we must affirm and believe that only the Catholic religion is the Christian religion. These affirmations have, as a result, inescapable conclusions that no ecclesiastic authority can contest: outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic religion, that is, outsi...

Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader

 + JMJ  A reader asked the following question in the 2015 version of the article on the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (link) : 117: "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order." Where can you find this in the documents of the Church? ( Link to comment )  Here's the reference from Ott: The citation that Ott provided was Denzinger 1786 and the source document is Dogmatic Consitution Concerning the Faith from the First Vatican Council (Papal Encyclicals - link) : Chapter 2 On Revelation, Article 3: It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation , that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone, without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error. Here's ...