The four most common breakdowns in logical thinking:
1. hasty generalizations
2. illogical predictions
3. argument against the person
4. false cause
(I suggest we know just the top 4 for now)
Below we have the comprehensive listing of all the many faces of "dubspeak"
Ad Hominem Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Appeal to Authority Appeal to Belief Appeal to Common Practice Appeal to Consequences of a Belief Appeal to Emotion Appeal to Fear Appeal to Flattery Appeal to Novelty Appeal to Pity Appeal to Popularity Appeal to Ridicule Appeal to Spite Appeal to Tradition Bandwagon Begging the Question Biased Sample Burden of Proof Circumstantial Ad Hominem Composition Confusing Cause and Effect Division False Dilemma Gambler's Fallacy Genetic Fallacy Guilt By Association Hasty Generalization Ignoring A Common Cause Middle Ground Misleading Vividness Personal Attack Poisoning the Well Post Hoc Questionable Cause Red Herring Relativist Fallacy Slippery Slope Special Pleading Spotlight Straw Man Two Wrongs Make A Right SELF-TERMINATING CLICHES --all apostates are 'full of hate' and 'hate the truth'.
LIST OF LOGICAL FALLACIES: ACCENTUS Description: A Fallacy of Ambiguity, where the ambiguity arises from the emphasis (accent) placed on a word or phrase. AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT Description: An argument from the truth of a hypothetical statement, and the truth of the consequent to the truth of the antecedent. In the syllogism below, P is the antecedent and Q is the consequent: P implies Q
Q is true <-- Affirming the consequent
Therefore: P is true AMBIGUITY Description: An argument in the course of which at least one term is used in different senses. Also known as equivocation. There are several types of "fallacies of ambiguity," including REIFICATION, EQUIVOCATION, AMPHIBOLY, COMPOSITION, DIVISION, and ACCENTUS. AMPHIBOLY Description: A type of Fallacy of Ambiguity where the ambiguity involved is of an "amphibolous" (equivocal, uncertain) nature. Amphiboly is a syntactic error. The fallacy is caused by faulty sentence structure, and can result in a meaning not intended by the author. "The department store now has pants for men with 32 waists." (How many waists do you have? I have only one!) ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM Description: A fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is old; that is, because "that's the way it's always been." ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM Description: An argument that resorts to the threat of force to cause the acceptance of the conclusion. Ad baculum arguments also include threats of fear to cause acceptance (e.g., "Do this or you'll go to Hades when you die!" or "Might makes right."). ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM Description: Fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing with salient issues. There are two basic types of ad hominem arguments: (1) abusive, and (2) circumstantial. ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM Description: An argument that a proposition is true because it has not been shown to be false, or vice versa. Ad ignorantium arguments are also known as "appeals to ignorance." This fallacy has two forms:
- P is true, because it has not been proven false.
- P is false, because it has not been proven true.
Therefore: Not-Q DIVISION Description: An argument in which one assumes that various parts have a property solely because the whole has that same property. Division is a type of Fallacy of Ambiguity. EQUIVOCATION Description: An argument in which an equivocal _expression is used in one sense in one premise and in a different sense in another premise, or in the conclusion. Equivocal means (1) of uncertain significance; not determined, and (2) having different meanings equally possible. Equivocation is a type of Fallacy of Ambiguity. The opposite of equivocation is "unovocation," in which a word always carries the same meaning through a given context. FALLACY OF INTERROGATION (loaded question) Description: The question asked has a presuppostion which the answerer may wish to deny, but which he/she would be accepting if he/she gave anything that would count as an answer. Any answer to the question "Why does such-and-such happen?" presupposes that such-and-such does indeed happen. FALSE ANALOGY (apples & oranges) Description: An analogy is a partial similarity between the like features of two things or events on which a comparison can be made. A false analogy involves comparing two things that are NOT similar. Note that the two things may be similar in superficial ways, but not with respect to what is being argued. HASTY GENERALIZATION (SECUNDUM QUID) Description: An argument in which a proposition is used as a premise without attention given to some obvious condition that would affect the proposition's application. This fallacy is also known as the "hasty generalization." It is a fallacy that takes evidence from several, possibly unrepresentative, cases to a general rule; generalizing from few to many. Note the relation to statistics: Much of statistics concerns whether or not a sample is representative of a larger population. The larger the sample size, the better the representativeness. Note also that the opposite of a hasty generalization is a sweeping generalization. IGNORATIO ELENCHI (irrevelant) Description: An argument that is supposed to prove one proposition but succeeds only in proving a different one. Ignoratio elenchi stands for "pure and simple irrelevance." ILLICIT PROCESS Description: A syllogistic argument in which a term is distributed in the conclusion, but not in the premises. One of the rules for a valid categorical syllogism is that if either term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises. There are two types of Illicit Process: Illicit Process of the Major Term and Illicit Process of the Minor Term. PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM-MANY QUESTIONS (how high is up?) Description: A demand for a simple answer to a complex question. NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA Description: An argument to reject a proposition because of the falsity of some other proposition that seems to be a consequence of the first, but really is not. NON-SEQUITUR (biggie used a lot) Description: An argument in which the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. Another way of putting this is: A conclusion drawn from premises that provide no logical connection to it. PETITIO PRINCIPII (the "JEOPARDY GAME") Description: Same as "Begging the Question" The argument assumes its conclusion is true but DOES NOT SHOW it to be true. Petitio principii has two forms:
- P is true, because P is true.
- P is true, because A is true. And A is true because B is true. And B is true because P is true.