Fallacies:
“Argument” from Outrage.
Inflammatory words (or thoughts) followed by a “conclusion” of some sort; substitutes anger for reason and judgment in considering an issue. (favorite strategy of demagogues.) Results:
- 1. We may think we have been given a reason for being angry when in fact we have not.
2. Second, we may let the anger we feel as the result of one thing influence our evaluations of an unrelated thing.
Scapegoating.
Blaming a certain group of people or even a single person for all of life’s troubles.
Scare tactics.
Trying to scare people into doing something or accepting a position.
“Argument” by force.
Threatening someone to make them do what you want.
“Argument” from pity.
When feeling sorry for someone drives us to a position on an unrelated matter.
“Argument” from envy.
Finding fault with a person because of envy.
Apple polishing.
Allowing praise of oneself to substitute for judgment about the truth of a claim, or trying to get others to do this.
Guilt trip.
Eliciting feelings of guilt to get others to do or not do something, or to accept the view that they should or should not do it.
Wishful thinking.
When we accept or urge acceptance (or rejection) of a claim simply because it would be pleasant (or unpleasant) if it were true.
Peer pressure “argument”.
Accepting a claim not because of its merits, but because we will gain someone’s approval (or will avoid having approval withdrawn).
Group think fallacy.
When one substitutes pride of membership in a group for reason and deliberation in arriving at a position on an issue.
Nationalism.
A powerful and fierce emotion that can lead to blind endorsement of a country’s policies and practices.
“My country right or wrong” explicitly discourages critical thinking and encourages blind patriotism. Nationalism is also invoked to reject, condemn, or silence criticism of one’s country as unpatriotic or treasonable, and may or may not involve an element of peer pressure.
Rationalizing.
Using a false pretext to satisfy our own desires or interests.
“Argument” from popularity.
Accept a claim or fall prey to someone’s doing it to us, simply on the grounds that all or most or some substantial number of people (other than authorities or experts, of course) believe it.
“Argument” from common practice.
Trying to justify or defend an action or practice (as distinguished from an assertion or claim) because it is common.
“Argument” from tradition.
Doing things because they have always been done.
Relativism.
Truth depends on what the people within the culture think.
Subjectivism.
What is true for one person is not necessarily true for another.
“Two wrongs make a right.”
Wrongful behavior on someone else’s part doesn’t convert wrongful behavior on your part into rightful behavior; any more than illegal behavior on someone else’s part converts your illegal activity into legal activity.
Red herring.
An intentional distraction from the original topic.
Ad hominem.
Confusing the qualities of the person making a claim with the qualities of the claim itself.
- Personal attack: Equating shortcomings in a person to shortcomings in that person’s ideas, proposals, theories, opinions, claims, or arguments.
Inconsistency: Rejecting what somebody says because what he or she says seems inconsistent with what he or she does
Circumstantial: Because someone’s circumstances are such and such; therefore, his claim (belief, opinion, theory, proposal, etc.) stands refuted.
Poisoning the well: When A poisons your mind about B by relating unfavorable information about B, so you may be inclined to reject what B says to you
Genetic fallacy.
When we try to “refute” a claim (or urge others to do so) on the basis of its origin or history.
Straw man.
When you “refute” a position or claim by distorting or oversimplifying or misrepresenting it.
False dilemma.
When you limit considerations to only two alternatives although other alternatives may be available.
Perfectionist.
If policy X will not meet our goals as well as we’d like them met (i.e., “perfectly”), then policy X should be rejected.
Line-drawing.
Insisting that a line must be drawn at some precise point when in fact it is not necessary that such a line be drawn.
Slippery slope.
To think that Y has to follow X when there is no reason to think that X will lead to Y.
Misplacing the burden of proof.
When the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of an issue.
- Initial plausibility: The more a claim coincides with our background information, the greater its initial plausibility. The less initial plausibility a claim has, the greater the burden of proof we place on someone who asserts that claim.
Affirmative/negative: Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting the affirmative side of an issue rather than on those supporting the negative side.
Appeal to ignorance: When someone claims that we should believe in such-and-such because nobody has proved that it isn’t so
Special circumstances: Sometimes getting at the truth is not the only thing we want to accomplish, and on such occasions, we may purposely place the burden of proof on a particular side.
Begging the Question.
When we ask our audience to accept premises that are as controversial as the conclusion we’re arguing for and are controversial on the same grounds. AKA circular reasoning or arguing.
!!!!
LOL 
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed