A fallacy , in the field of logic, is an argument or reasoning that appears valid at first glance, but is not. Whether committed intentionally, for the purposes of manipulation and deception (sophistry), or disinterestedly (paralogism), fallacies have concerned various discursive fields of social work, such as politics, rhetoric, science , or religion . For example: begging the question, sniper fallacy, ad populum argument.
Aristotle postulated the existence of thirteen types of fallacies , but today we know of a much larger number and various ways of classifying them. Generally speaking, an argument will not be fallacious when it has deductive or inductive validity, true and justified premises , and does not fall into the so-called begging of the question .
Examples of fallacies
- Begging the question . This is a fallacy characterized by containing the conclusion of the argument to be proven implicitly or explicitly within the premises available for it. Therefore, it is a form of circular reasoning, in which the conclusion points back to the premise itself. For example: “I am right because I am your father, and fathers are always right.”
- Affirmation of the Consequent . Also called the converse fallacy , this fallacy asserts the truth of a premise based on a conclusion, thus contradicting linear logic. For example: “Whenever it snows, it’s cold. Since it’s cold, it’s snowing.”
- Hasty generalization . This fallacy draws and asserts a conclusion from insufficient premises, extending the reasoning to all possible cases. For example: “Dad loves broccoli. My sister loves broccoli. The whole family loves broccoli.”
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc . This fallacy is named after a Latin expression that translates as “after this, as a consequence of this” and is also known as coincidental correlation or false causation. It attributes a conclusion to a premise simply because they occur successively. For example: “The sun rises after the rooster crows. Therefore, the sun rises because the rooster crows.”
- Sharpshooter fallacy . Its name is inspired by a supposed sniper who fired at a barn at random and then painted a bull’s-eye on each shot to proclaim his accuracy. This fallacy involves manipulating unrelated information to achieve some kind of logical effect. It also explains autosuggestion. For example: “Today I dreamed I was twelve years old. The number 3 came up in the lottery. The dream warned of this because 1 + 2 = 3.”
- Scarecrow fallacy . Also known as the straw man fallacy, this consists of caricaturing opposing arguments in order to attack a weaker version of them and demonstrate argumentative superiority. For example:
– I think children shouldn’t be out late.
– I don’t think you should keep them locked up in a dungeon until they grow up (fallacious refutation) - Special pleading fallacy . This consists of accusing the opponent of lacking the sensitivity, knowledge, or authority to participate in the debate, thereby disqualifying them as incompetent at the minimum level necessary to be refuted. For example:
– I don’t agree with the overnight increase in electricity and water rates.
– The problem is that you don’t understand anything about economics . - Red herring fallacy . Known as red herring, it involves diverting attention from the debate to another topic, as a diversionary tactic that hides the argumentative weaknesses of one’s own argument. For example:
– You disagree with the proposed sentence for the rapist? Don’t you care what thousands of parents think about it? - Argument from silence . The argument from silence is a fallacy that draws a conclusion from silence or lack of evidence—that is, from the opponent’s silence or refusal to reveal information. For example:
“ How well do you speak German?
” “ It’s a second language to me.
” “ Let’s see, recite me a poem.
” “ I don’t know any.
” “ Then you don’t know German.” - Argument ad consequentiam . This fallacy consists of evaluating the truth of a premise based on the desirability or undesirability of its conclusions or consequences. For example:
– I can’t be pregnant; if I were, my father would kill me. - Argument ad baculum . The “stick argument” (in Latin) is a fallacy that supports the validity of a premise based on the threat of violence, coercion, or threat that not accepting it would represent to the interlocutor or adversary. For example:
“ You’re not homosexual. If you were, we couldn’t remain friends.” - Ad hominem argument . This fallacy shifts the attack from the opponent’s arguments to oneself, undermining them by extension through the personal attack. For example:
– Long-term loans will solve the fiscal deficit.
– You say that because you’re a millionaire and don’t understand needs. - Argument from ignorance . Also known as the appeal to ignorance, this argument asserts the validity or falsity of a premise based on the existence or lack of evidence to prove it. Thus, the argument is based not on actual knowledge, but on one’s own or one’s opponent’s ignorance. For example:
– You say your party is the majority? I don’t believe it.
– You can’t prove otherwise, so it must be true. - Argument ad populum . Known as the populist fallacy, it involves assuming the validity or falsity of a premise based on what a majority (real or perceived) thinks about it. For example:
– I don’t like chocolate.
– Everyone likes chocolate. - Argumentation ad nauseam . The fallacy of repeating a premise, as if insisting on it could establish its validity or falsity. This fallacy is summed up in the famous phrase by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels: “A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.”
- Argument from authority . Also called an “argument from authority,” it defends the validity or falsity of a premise based on the opinion of an expert or some authority (real or pretended) on the matter. For example :
“ I don’t think there were that many people at the demonstration.
” “ Of course there were. The newspapers said so.” - Argument ad antiquitatem . This fallacy consists of an appeal to tradition , that is, assuming the validity of a premise according to the customary way of thinking. For example:
– Same-sex marriage cannot be permitted. When has anything like this ever been seen? - Argument ad novitatem . Known as an appeal to novelty, it is the opposite of the appeal to tradition ; it suggests the validity of a premise based on its novelty. For example:
– I don’t like this program.
– But it’s the most recent version! - Argument ad conditionallis . This is a fallacy that conditions the argument or evidence of its conclusion, preventing it from being refuted because it hasn’t been fully affirmed. It’s typical of journalism and uses many words in the conditional mood. For example:
– The politician would have diverted public funds for his personal benefit. - Ecological fallacy . This fallacy attributes the truth or falsity of a statement based on the erroneous attribution of some characteristic of a human group (for example, those revealed by statistics) to any individual without distinction, fostering stereotypes and prejudices . For example:
– One in three robbers in the United States is Black. Therefore, Black people are more likely to steal.
