List of fallacies

A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which undermines an

argument's logical validity or more generally an argument's logical soundness.
Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.

Formal fallacies

A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's

form. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in
which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur,
the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious
because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All
invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special
applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non
sequitur argument forms have been classified into many types of logical
fallacies.

 Anecdotal fallacy – using a personal experience or an isolated example

instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence.
 Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted
because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).
 Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion
is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.
 Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional
probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.
 Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously
satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying
a single one of them.
 Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of
identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.

Propositional fallacies

A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound

propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its
constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives that occur in it
(most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>). The
following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by
the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically
guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
Types of Propositional fallacies:

 Affirming a disjunct – concluded that one disjunct of a logical

disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A,
therefore not B.
 Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is
claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B,
therefore A.
 Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is
claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A,
therefore not B.
Quantification fallacies

A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the

premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of Quantification fallacies:

 Existential fallacy – an argument that has a universal premise and a

particular conclusion.

Formal syllogistic fallacies

Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

 Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – when a

categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative
premise.
 Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid
because both of its premises are negative.
 Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) – a categorical syllogism that
has four terms. Illicit – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its
major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the
conclusion.
 Illicit minor – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term
is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.
 Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) – when a
categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises.
 Fallacy of the undistributed middle – the middle term in a categorical
syllogism is not distributed.
Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than
structural (formal) flaws and usually require examination of the argument's
content.

 Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as

absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.
 Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad
ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or
cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
 Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common
sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be
false.
 Argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has
been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;
sometimes confused with proof by assertion
 Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is
based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
 Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the
mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise
between two positions is always correct.
 Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an
attack at your opponent.
 ergo decedo – where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the
underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away
from the issue altogether.
 Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
 Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the
conclusion of the argument as a premise.
 (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my
claim; you must prove it is false.
 Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins
with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming
the conclusion.
 Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the
phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
 Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy,
fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for
being imprecise.
 Correlative-based fallacies
 Correlation proves causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty
assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one
causes the other.
 Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one
alternative is made impossible.
 Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word to deal with an
objection raised against the original wording.
 Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning
(by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).
 Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which
the middle term is equivocated.
 Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are
based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which
those individuals belong.
 Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical
meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-
day usage.
 Fallacy of accent – a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the
meaning of a sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress,
or when, in a written passage, it's left unclear which word the emphasis
was supposed to fall on.
 Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole
must also be true of the whole.
 Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be
true of all or some of its parts.
 False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified,
unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
 Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective
excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the
source's intended meaning.
 False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials
or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal
to authority fallacy.
 False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white
fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible
options, when in reality there are more.
 False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent
equivalence, when in fact there is none.
 Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition,
loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that
presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the
people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question
limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
 Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that
there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been
caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
 Furtive fallacy – outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the
malfeasance of decision makers.
 Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events
can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a fair coin lands on
heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it
had previously landed on tails" is incorrect.
 Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of
the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same
information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. (Not to be
confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which
present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
 Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this
sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually
explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains
the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or
explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something
produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely
explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).
 Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a
certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the
legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.
 If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using
terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
 Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to
make a complete comparison.
 Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are
used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
 Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an
expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom
the communication originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received
as a blatant allegory must necessarily not be regarded as such if the
author intended it not to be so.)
 Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument
that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.44]
 Kettle logic – using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a
position.
 Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random
occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into
account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events
taking place.
 Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou"
attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.
 Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative
premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance,
inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy
is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.
 Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence
presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other
(often greater) evidence is demanded.
 Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual
premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance,
inferring ought from is (sometimes referred to as the is-ought fallacy) is an
instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense
as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is
an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse
of moralistic fallacy.
 Naturalistic fallacy (anti-naturalistic fallacy) – inferring impossibility to infer
any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought
fallacy mentioned above. For instance, is does
imply ought for any proposition , although the naturalistic
fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy
is an instance of argument from fallacy.
 Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are
rejected because they are not perfect.
 Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui
negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on
the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of
the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on
the person defending against the assertion.
 Petitio principii – see begging the question.
 Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"
(faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation)
– X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness
Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's
obviously the Loch Ness Monster.
 Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of
contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from
repetition a.k.a. argumentum ad infinitum
 Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) –
submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to
reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish
Gallop and argument from authority.)
 Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a
low probability of some false match being found.
 Proving too much – using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could
be used more generally to reach an absurd conclusion.
 Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his
own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
 Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating
from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker
believes is easier to speak to.
 Referential fallacy – assuming all words refer to existing things and that
the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to
words possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words
often comes from how we use them.
 Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing
to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post
hoc fallacy.
 Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction
(abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete,
real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a
"real thing" something that is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
 Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has
occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
 Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of
arguments for a position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of
them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
 Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite
something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle
without justifying the exemption.
 Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be
the effect and vice versa.

Faulty generalizations

Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike

fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are
related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty
generalization is thus produced.

 Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.

 No true Scotsman – when a generalization is made true only when a
counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.
 Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of
pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular
position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that
may contradict that position.
 Survivorship bias – when a small number of survivors of a given
process are actively promoted while completely ignoring a large
number of failures
 False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly
suited.
 Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient
sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty
induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad
conclusion on a small sample.
 Inductive fallacy – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty
generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that
lightly support it.
 Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail,
even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a
problem.
 Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with
qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much
less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.
 Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes
passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack
of thought-entertainment, move on to other topics etc. but in any case,
end the debate with a cliché—not a point.
Red herring fallacies

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended

to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the
general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to
replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the
discussion.

Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is

irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument.

 Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

 Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information
about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything
that the target person says.
 Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into
verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally
proposed argument.
 Vacuous truth
 Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is
deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
 Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or
false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.
 Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the
conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative
consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from
the initial discussion.
 Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation
of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.
  Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an
argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the
opposing side
 Appeal to flattery – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an
argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.
 Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument
attempts to induce pity to sway opponents.
 Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the
opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
 Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an
argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite
towards an opposing party.
 Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a
decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine,
rather than according to evidence or reason.
 Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on
an assumed pretense of equality.
 Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question
the motives of its proposer.
 Appeal to nature – wherein judgment is based solely on whether the
subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.
 Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis/antiquitatis) – where a proposal
is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.
 Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion
because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy).
(Opposite of appeal to wealth.)
 Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion
supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
 Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion
because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is
poor). (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general
appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
 Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on
silence or lack of contrary evidence.
 Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to
threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to
support position.
 Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon
argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a
proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people
believe it to be so.
 Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things
share a property they are the same.
 Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being
used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is
invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes
from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.
 Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it
was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also
commonly held.
 Fallacy of relative privation ("not as bad as") – dismissing an argument
due to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the
world.
 Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on
something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.
 Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the
recipient's judgment.
 Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy, naturalistic fallacy) – claims about
what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
 Pooh-pooh - dismissing an argument unworthy of serious consideration.
Straw man fallacy – an argument based on misrepresentation of an
opponent's position.
 Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a
cluster of data.
 Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) –
the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or should be
disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance
with that position.
 Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is
committed, another wrong will cancel it out.
Conditional or questionable fallacies

 Broken window fallacy – an argument that disregards lost opportunity

costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden)
associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of
externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument that states
breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards
the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on
new shoes. The example of the broken window argument is identified as a
fallacy but the example argument depends on ignoring the cost of willing
workers sitting idle.
 Definist fallacy – involves the confusion between two notions by defining
one in terms of the other.
 Naturalistic fallacy – attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing
to a definition of the term "good" in terms of either one or more claims
about natural properties (sometimes also taken to mean the appeal to
nature) or God's will.
 Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a
relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events
culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus
the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in
its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g. if person x does y then z
would [probably] occur, leading to q, leading to w, leading to e.) This is
also related to the Reductio ad absurdum.