User:Sharkingbark/sandbox

FORMAL AND INFORMAL FALLACIES

Fallacy	Discription	Alternative Names	Example	Remarks
FORMAL FALLACIES	an error in the argument's form. They are types of non sequitur.
Appeal to probability	"it is because, it would probably be the case"	appeal to possibility, "possibiliter ergo probabiliter", possibly, therefore probably
Argument from fallacy	"if an argument is fallacious, then the conclusion is false"	argument to logic, argumentum ad logicam, the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy
Base rate fallacy	judgment on an outcome is made without considering prior knowledge of probability of its occurrence, instead focusing on other conditional probability information that isn't relevant	base rate neglect or base rate bias
Conjunction fallacy	an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them	Linda problem
Masked-man fallacy	"since one knows something by one description, one must know it by another"	illicit substitution of identicals, intensional fallacy and the epistemic fallacy
Propositional fallacies	an error that concerns compound propositions. These fallacies involve relations whose truth values are not guaranteed and therefore not guaranteed to yield true conclusions. ie relevant logical connectives (most commonly: [and], [or], [not], [only if], [if and only if ]) are not satisfied.
Affirming a disjunct	concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true;	the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct	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;	converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency	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;	inverse error or fallacy of the inverse	if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.
Quantification fallacies	an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Existential fallacy	an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.	existential instantiation
Formal syllogistic fallacies	logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise	a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise	illicit negative
Fallacy of exclusive premises	a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative
Fallacy of four terms	a categorical syllogism that has four terms	quaternio terminorum
Illicit major	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	a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises	illicit affirmative
Fallacy of the undistributed middle	the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed
Modal fallacy	confusing necessity with sufficiency.		A condition X is necessary for Y if X is required for even the possibility of Y. X doesn’t bring about Y by itself, but if there is no X, there will be no Y. For example, oxygen is necessary for fire. But one cannot assume that everywhere there is oxygen, there is fire. A condition X is sufficient for Y if X, by itself, is enough to bring about Y. For example, riding the bus is a sufficient mode of transportation to get to work. But there are other modes of transportation – car, taxi, bicycle, walking – that can be used.
Modal scope fallacy	a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion
INFORMAL FALLACIES	arguments that are logically unsound for lack of well-grounded premises.
Argument to moderation	assuming that a compromise between two positions is always correct.	false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, 'argumentum ad temperantiam'
Continuum fallacy	improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.	fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy, decision-point fallacy
Correlative-based fallacies
Suppressed correlative	a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible		e.g., "I'm not fat because I'm thinner than him"
Definist fallacy	defining a term used in an argument in a biased manner		(e.g., using "loaded terms"). The person making the argument expects that the listener will accept the provided definition, making the argument difficult to refute.
Divine fallacy	arguing that, because something is so incredible or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.	argument from incredulity
Double counting	counting events or occurrences more than once in probabilistic reasoning, which leads to the sum of the probabilities of all cases exceeding unity.
Equivocation	using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended.
Ambiguous middle term	using a middle term with multiple meanings.
Definitional retreat	changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised.
Motte-and-bailey fallacy	conflating two positions with similar properties, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one more controversial (the "bailey"). The arguer first states the controversial position, but when challenged, states that they are advancing the modest position.
Fallacy of accent	changing the meaning of a statement by not specifying on which word emphasis falls.
Persuasive definition	purporting to use the "true" or "commonly accepted" meaning of a term while, in reality, using an uncommon or altered definition.
(cf. the if-by-whiskey fallacy)
Ecological fallacy	inferring about the nature of an entity based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which that entity belongs.
Etymological fallacy	assuming that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage.
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 composite thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.
False attribution	appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
Fallacy of quoting out of context	selective excerpting of words from their original context to distort the intended meaning.	contextotomy, contextomy; quotation mining
False authority	using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to promote a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority.	single authority
False dilemma	two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more.	false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy
False equivalence	describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.
Feedback fallacy	believing in the objectivity of an evaluation to be used as the basis for improvement without verifying that the source of the evaluation is a disinterested party.
Historian's fallacy	assuming that decision makers of the past had identical information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. This should not to be confused with presentism, in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically projected into the past.
Historical fallacy	a set of considerations is thought to hold good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result.
Baconian fallacy	using pieces of historical evidence without the aid of specific methods, hypotheses, or theories in an attempt to make a general truth about the past. Commits historians "to the pursuit of an impossible object by an impracticable method".
Homunculus fallacy	using a "middle-man" for explanation; this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. It explains a concept in terms of the concept itself without explaining its real nature		e.g.: explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker a homunculus inside the head simply identifies an intermediary actor and does not explain the product or process of thinking
Inflation of conflict	arguing that, if experts in a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point within that field, no conclusion can be reached or that the legitimacy of that field of knowledge is questionable.
If-by-whiskey	an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are emotionally sensitive and ambiguous.
Incomplete comparison	insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
Inconsistent comparison	different methods of comparison are used, leaving 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
Kettle logic	using multiple, jointly inconsistent arguments to defend a position.^{[dubious discuss]}
Ludic fallacy	failing to take into account that non-regulated random occurrences unknown unknowns can affect the probability of an event taking place.
Lump of labour fallacy	the misconception that there is a fixed amount of work to be done within an economy, which can be distributed to create more or fewer jobs.
McNamara fallacy	making an argument using only quantitative observations (measurements, statistical or numerical values) and discounting subjective information that focuses on quality (traits, features, or relationships).	quantitative fallacy
Mind projection fallacy	assuming that a statement about an object describes an inherent property of the object, rather than a personal perception.
Moralistic fallacy	inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction		e.g.: inferring from ought	Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy.
Moving the goalposts	argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.	raising the bar
Nirvana fallacy	solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.	perfect-solution fallacy
Package deal	treating essentially dissimilar concepts as though they were essentially similar.
Proof by assertion	a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction;			sometimes confused with argument from repetition ('argumentum ad infinitum', 'argumentum ad nauseam')argumentum ad temperantiam'
Prosecutor's fallacy	a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
Proving too much	an argument that results in an overly-generalized conclusion		e.g.: arguing that drinking alcohol is bad because in some instances it has led to spousal or child abuse
Psychologist's fallacy	an observer presupposes the objectivity of their own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
Referential fallacy	assuming that 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		(e.g.: Pegasus) or that the meaning comes from how they are used (e.g.: "nobody" was in the room)
Reification	treating an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity	concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness	e.g.: saying that evolution selects which traits are passed on to future generations; evolution is not a conscious entity with agency
Retrospective determinism	believing that, because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made the event inevitable		e.g.: because someone won the lottery while wearing their lucky socks, wearing those socks made winning the lottery inevitable
Slippery slope	asserting that a proposed, relatively small, first action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in a significant and negative event and, therefore, should not be permitted.	thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose
Special pleading	the arguer attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption		e.g.: a defendant who murdered his parents asks for leniency because he is now an orphan
Improper premise
Begging the question	using the conclusion of the argument in support of itself in a premise	'petitio principii'	e.g.: saying that smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you; something that kills is deadly
Loaded label	When fallaciously used, the term's connotations are relied on to sway the argument towards a particular conclusion		For example, an organic foods advertisement that says "Organic foods are safe and healthy foods grown without any pesticides, herbicides, or other unhealthy additives." Use of the term "unhealthy additives" is used as support for the idea that the product is safe.	while not inherently fallacious, use of evocative terms to support a conclusion is a type of begging the question fallacy.
Circular reasoning	the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with	'circulus in demonstrando'	e.g.: all bachelors are unmarried males
Fallacy of many questions	someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.	complex question, fallacy of presuppositions, loaded question, 'plurium interrogationum'		This fallacy is often used rhetorically so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda
Faulty generalization	reaching a conclusion from weak premises.
Accident	an exception to a generalization is ignored.
No true Scotsman	makes a generalization true by changing the generalization to exclude a counterexample.
Cherry picking	using individual cases or data that confirm a particular position, while ignoring related cases or data that may contradict that position.	suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence
Nut-picking	using individual cases or data that falsify a particular position, while ignoring related cases or data that may support that position.	suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence
Survivorship bias	a small number of successes 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	basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample.	fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions
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; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy.
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 forethought, move on to other topics, etc. – but in any case, to end the debate with a cliché rather than a point.
Questionable cause	a general type of error with many variants. Its primary basis is the confusion of association with causation, either by inappropriately deducing (or rejecting) causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc	a faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other.	Latin for "with this, therefore because of this"; correlation implies causation; faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation
Post hoc ergo propter hoc	X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.	Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"; temporal sequence implies causation
Wrong direction	cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa. The consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.	reverse causation
Ignoring a common cause
Fallacy of the single cause	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.	causal oversimplification
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.
Inverse gambler's fallacy
Magical thinking	fallacious attribution of causal relationships between actions and events. In anthropology, it refers primarily to cultural beliefs that ritual, prayer, sacrifice, and taboos will produce specific supernatural consequences. In psychology, it refers to an irrational belief that thoughts by themselves can affect the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.
Regression fallacy	ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations.			It is frequently a special kind of post hoc fallacy.
Relevance fallacies
Appeal to the stone	dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.	'argumentum ad lapidem'
Argument from ignorance	assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa	appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argument from incredulity	"I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."	appeal to common sense
Argument from repetition	repeating an argument until nobody cares to discuss it any more; sometimes confused with proof by assertion	'argumentum ad nauseam', 'argumentum ad infinitum'
Argument from silence	assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence from an authoritative source, or vice versa.	'argumentum ex silentio'
Ignoratio elenchi	an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.	irrelevant conclusion, missing the point
RED HERRING	introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic.		e.g.: saying “If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?”	See also irrelevant conclusion.
Ad hominem	attacking the arguer instead of the argument.			(N.b., "ad hominem" can also refer to the dialectical strategy of arguing on the basis of the opponent's own commitments. This type of ad hominem is not a fallacy.)
Circumstantial ad hominem	stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong.
Poisoning the well	a subtype of 'ad hominem' presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
Appeal to motive	dismissing an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer.
Kafka-trapping	a sophistical and unfalsifiable form of argument that attempts to overcome an opponent by inducing a sense of guilt and using the opponent's denial of guilt as further evidence of guilt.
Tone policing	focusing on emotion behind (or resulting from) a message rather than the message itself as a discrediting tactic.
Traitorous critic fallacy	a critic's perceived affiliation is portrayed as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.	'ergo decedo', 'thus leave'		Easily confused with the association fallacy ("guilt by association") below.
Appeal to authority	an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.	argument from authority, 'argumentum ad verecundiam'
Appeal to accomplishment	an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. This may often also have elements of appeal to emotion (see below).
Courtier's reply	a criticism is dismissed by claiming that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to credibly comment on the subject matter.
Appeal to consequences	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.	'argumentum ad consequentiam'
Appeal to emotion	an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.
Appeal to fear	an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
Appeal to flattery	an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.
Appeal to pity	an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents.	'argumentum ad misericordiam'
Appeal to ridicule	an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous (or, arguing or implying that because it is ridiculous it must be untrue).
Appeal to spite	an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.
Judgmental language	insulting or pejorative language to influence the audience's judgment.
Pooh-pooh	dismissing an argument perceived unworthy of serious consideration.
Wishful thinking	a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.
Appeal to nature	judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.			(Sometimes also called the "naturalistic fallacy", but is not to be confused with the other fallacies by that name.)
Appeal to novelty	a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.	'argumentum novitatis', 'argumentum ad antiquitatis'		(opposite of appeal to tradition)
Appeal to poverty	supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy).	'argumentum ad Lazarum'		(Opposite of appeal to wealth.)
Appeal to tradition	a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.	'argumentum ad antiquitatem'
Appeal to wealth	supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).	'argumentum ad crumenam'		(Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
Argumentum ad baculum	an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.	appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat
Argumentum ad populum	a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because a majority or many people believe it to be so.	appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people
Association fallacy	arguing that because two things share (or are implied to share) some property, they are the same.	guilt by association and honor by association
Logic chopping fallacy	Focusing on trivial details of an argument, rather than the main point of the argumentation	nit-picking, trivial objections
Ipse dixit	a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.	bare assertion fallacy
Bulverism	inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. The assumption that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a falsehood.	psychogenetic fallacy
Chronological snobbery	a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, known to be false, was also commonly held.
Fallacy of relative privation	dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems.	"appeal to worse problems", "not as bad as"		First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.
Genetic fallacy	a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.
I'm entitled to my opinion	a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion.
Moralistic fallacy	inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises, in violation of fact-value distinction;		e.g. making statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be. This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.
Naturalistic fallacy	inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises in violation of fact-value distinction.			Naturalistic fallacy (sometimes confused with appeal to nature) is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
Is–ought fallacy	statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be.
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy	inferring an 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 fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid.	anti-naturalistic fallacy		Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy.
Straw man fallacy	misrepresenting an opponent's argument by broadening or narrowing the scope of a premise and refuting a weaker version.		e.g.: saying “You tell us that A is the right thing to do, but the real reason you want us to do A is that you would personally profit from it
Texas sharpshooter fallacy	improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.
Tu quoque	stating that a position is false, wrong, or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with it.	'you too', appeal to hypocrisy, whataboutism
Two wrongs make a right	assuming that, if one wrong is committed, another wrong will rectify it.
Vacuous truth	a claim that is technically true but meaningless, in the form no A in B has C, when there is no A in B.		For example, claiming that no mobile phones in the room are on when there are no mobile phones in the room.

References

Citations

Hornby, A.S. (2010). Oxford advanced learner's dictionary of current English (8th ed.). Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0194799003. sophist
Bunnin & Yu 2004, "formal fallacy".
Leon, Joseph (23 April 2011). "Appeal to Probability". Logical & Critical Thinking. Archived from the original on 27 September 2013.
McDonald, Simon (2009). "Appeal to probability". Toolkit For Thinking. Archived from the original on 19 February 2015.
Curtis, "Fallacy Fallacy".
"Base Rate Fallacy". Psychology Glossary. AlleyDog.com. Archived from the original on 2011-07-07. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
Straker, David. "Conjunction Fallacy". ChangingMinds.org. Archived from the original on 2011-08-13. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
Bennet, Bo. "Non Sequitur". logicallyfallacious.
Curtis, "The Masked Man Fallacy".
Wilson 1999, p. 316.
Wilson 1999, p. 317.
Pirie 2006, pp. 133–36. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPirie2006 (help)
Wilson 1999, pp. 316–17.
Bunnin & Yu 2004, "informal fallacy".
Damer 2009, p. 150.
Dowden 2010, "Line-Drawing".
Feinberg, Joel (2007). "Psychological Egoism". In Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed.). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 193. ISBN 978-1-4051-3320-3. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-10-04.
Frankena, W. K. (October 1939). "The Naturalistic Fallacy". Mind. Oxford University Press. 48 (192): 464–77. doi:10.1093/mind/XLVIII.192.464. JSTOR 2250706.
Carroll, Robert T. "divine fallacy (argument from incredulity)". The Skeptic's Dictionary. Archived from the original on 10 April 2013. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
Damer 2009, p. 121.
Copi & Cohen 1990, pp. 206-207.
Pirie, Madsen (2006). How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic. A&C Black. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-8264-9006-3. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
Zabel, Joseph (9 August 2017). "The Motte and the Bailey: A rhetorical strategy to know". heterodoxacademy.org. Archived from the original on 4 February 2020. Retrieved 30 January 2020.
Shackel, Nicholas (2005). "The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology" (PDF). Metaphilosophy. 36 (3): 295–320. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2005.00370.x. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2020-09-06. For my purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents a philosophical doctrine or position with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed ...
Shackel, Nicholas (5 September 2014). "Motte and Bailey Doctrines". Practical Ethics: Ethics in the News. Cardiff University / University of Oxford. Archived from the original on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2019. Some people have spoken of a Motte and Bailey Doctrine as being a fallacy and others of it being a matter of strategic equivocation. Strictly speaking, neither is correct.
Fischer 1970, pp. 119-120.
Gula 2002, p. 70.
Pirie 2006, p. 31. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPirie2006 (help)
Pirie 2006, p. 53. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPirie2006 (help)
Gula 2002, p. 97.
"Fallacy – False Dilemma". Nizkor. The Nizkor Project. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved 2011-02-01.
Marcus Buckingham; Ashley Goodall. "The Feedback Fallacy". Harvard Business Review. No. March–April 2019. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-03-11.
Fischer 1970, pp. 209-213.
"The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology", John Dewey, The Psychological Review, Vol. III. No. 4. July 1896. p. 367
Fischer 1970, pp. 4-8.
Bunnin & Yu 2004, "Homunculus".
"A List Of Fallacious Arguments". Retrieved 6 October 2012.
"Inflation of Conflict".
Wimsatt, William K. and Monroe C. Beardsley. "The Intentional Fallacy." Sewanee Review, vol. 54 (1946): 468–88. Revised and republished in The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry Archived 2017-02-08 at the Wayback Machine, U of Kentucky P, 1954: 3–18.
Taleb, Nassim (2007). The Black Swan. Random House. p. 309. ISBN 978-1-4000-6351-2. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
"Economics A-Z: terms beginning with L". The Economist. Archived from the original on 19 December 2016. Retrieved 21 December 2016.
Semiotics Glossary R, Referential fallacy or illusion Archived 2018-07-26 at the Wayback Machine
Walton 2008, p. 315.
"Your logical fallacy is begging the question". Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Archived from the original on 2015-09-27. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
"Fallacy: Begging the Question". nizkor.org. Archived from the original on 2019-03-10. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
"Begging the Question". txstate.edu. Archived from the original on 2015-09-28. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
John D. Ramage; John C. Bean; June Johnson (2016). Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings, Concise Edition, MLA Update Edition. Pearson Education. p. 275. ISBN 978-0-13-458649-6. Archived from the original on 2020-02-20. Retrieved 2018-04-03.
Pirie 2006, p. 5. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPirie2006 (help)
Flew 1984, "No-true-Scotsman move".
Hurley 2007, p. 155.
Bennet, Bo. "Cherry Picking". logicallyfallacious.
Damer 2009, p. 151.
Hurley 2007, p. 134.
Fischer 1970, p. 127.
Pirie 2006, p. 41. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPirie2006 (help)
Damer 2009, p. 180.
Gula 2002, p. 135.
Damer 2009, p. 178.
Damer 2009, p. 186.
Patey, Douglas Lane (1986). "Johnson's Refutation of Berkeley: Kicking the Stone Again". Journal of the History of Ideas. 47 (1): 139–145. doi:10.2307/2709600. JSTOR 2709600.
Damer 2009, p. 165.
"Argument from personal incredulity – Toolkit For Thinking". www.toolkitforthinking.com. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2013-11-08.
"Repetition". changingminds.org. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
"Ad nauseam – Toolkit For Thinking". toolkitforthinking.com. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
"Argument from silence – Toolkit For Thinking". toolkitforthinking.com. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
Copi & Cohen 1990, pp. 105-107.
Gary Curtis. "Logical Fallacy: Red Herring". fallacyfiles.org. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
"Logical Fallacies". logicalfallacies.info. Archived from the original on 2016-02-21. Retrieved 2016-02-24.
Damer 2009, p. 208.
Nizkor. "Circumstantial Ad Hominem". Archived from the original on July 13, 2015. Retrieved September 5, 2018.
Walton 2008, p. 187.
Clark & Clark 2005, pp. 13–16.
Walton 1997, p. 28.
Walton 2008, p. 27.
Damer 2009, p. 111.
"Appeal to Fear". changingminds.org. Archived from the original on 2014-02-22. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
Gula 2002, p. 12.
Walton 2008, p. 128.
"Appeal to Ridicule". changingminds.org. Archived from the original on 2014-02-22. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
"Appeal to Spite". changingminds.org. Archived from the original on 2014-02-22. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
Munson, Ronald; Black, Andrew (2016). The Elements of Reasoning. Cengage Learning. p. 257. ISBN 978-1305886834. Archived from the original on 2016-01-18. Retrieved 2015-11-13.
Damer 2009, p. 146.
Gary Curtis. "Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Nature". fallacyfiles.org. Archived from the original on 2015-09-24. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
Pirie 2006, p. 116. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPirie2006 (help)
Pirie 2006, p. 104. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPirie2006 (help)
Pirie 2006, p. 14. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPirie2006 (help)
Pirie 2006, p. 39. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPirie2006 (help)
Damer 2009, p. 106.
"Appeal to Widespread Belief". Archived from the original on 13 June 2011. Retrieved 6 October 2012.
Gary Curtis. "Logical Fallacy: Guilt by Association". fallacyfiles.org. Archived from the original on 2019-06-05. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
Bennett, Bo. "Logic Chopping". LogicallyFallacious.
Byerly, Henry (1973). A primer of logic. Harper & Row. ISBN 0060411139.
Whitney, William Dwight. (1906). "Ipse dixit", The Century dictionary and cyclopedia, pp. 379–380; Westbrook, Robert B. "John Dewey and American Democracy", p. 359 Archived 2020-12-04 at the Wayback Machine.
VanderMey, Randall et al. (2011). Comp, p. 183; excerpt: "Bare assertion. The most basic way to distort an issue is to deny that it exists. This fallacy claims, 'That's just how it is.' "
"Encyclopedia Barfieldiana". davidlavery.net. Archived from the original on 2013-05-20. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
"Archived copy". Archived from the original on February 5, 2012. Retrieved February 11, 2014.
Turkel, Bruce (6 September 2016). All about Them: Grow Your Business by Focusing on Others. Da Capo Press. ISBN 9780738219202 – via Google Books.
"Relative privation". Archived from the original on 2019-11-05. Retrieved 2019-12-30 – via Logically Fallacious.
Damer 2009, p. 93.
Dowden 2010, "Naturalistic".
"Naturalistic fallacy". TheFreeDictionary.com. Archived from the original on 2013-06-04. Retrieved 2013-07-01.
Dowden 2010, "Is-Ought".
John Searle, "How to Derive 'Ought' from 'Is' Archived 2017-02-07 at the Wayback Machine", The Philosophical Review, 73:1 (January 1964), 43–58
Alex Walter, "The Anti-naturalistic Fallacy: Evolutionary Moral Psychology and the Insistence of Brute Facts", Evolutionary Psychology, 4 (2006), 33–48
Walton 2008, p. 22.
Curtis, "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy".
Pirie 2006, p. 164. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFPirie2006 (help)
Johnson & Blair 1994, p. 122.

Sources

Bunnin, Nicholas; Yu, Jiyuan, eds. (2004). The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-0679-5.
Clark, Jef; Clark, Theo (2005). Humbug! The Skeptic's Field Guide to Spotting Fallacies in Thinking. Nifty Books. ISBN 0-646-44477-8. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-10-04. Also available as an ebook Archived 2016-03-06 at the Wayback Machine.
Copi, Irving M.; Cohen, Carl (1990). Introduction to Logic (8th ed.). Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-02-325035-4.
Curtis, Gary N. "Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy Files". Archived from the original on 2015-10-01. Retrieved 2011-04-23.
Damer, T. Edward (2009). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments (6th ed.). Wadsworth. ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4. Archived from the original on 16 November 2016. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
Dowden, Bradley (December 31, 2010). "Fallacy". Archived copy. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002. Archived from the original on 2008-09-13. Retrieved 2011-04-22.
Fischer, David Hackett (1970). Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-131545-9.
Flew, Antony (1984). A Dictionary of Philosophy (Revised 2nd ed.). Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-312-20923-0. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-10-04.
Gula, Robert J. (2002). Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language. Axios Press. ISBN 978-0-9753662-6-4. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-10-04.
Hurley, Patrick J. (2007). A Concise Introduction to Logic (10th ed.). Cengage. ISBN 978-0-495-50383-5. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-10-04.
Johnson, Ralph H.; Blair, J. Anthony (1994). Logical Self-Defense. IDEA. ISBN 978-1-932716-18-4. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-10-04.
Pirie, Madsen (2006). How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8264-9006-9. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-10-04.
Wilson, W. Kent (1999). "Formal fallacy". In Audi, Robert (ed.). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 316–17. ISBN 978-0-511-07417-2.
Walton, Douglas (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. Pennsylvania State University. ISBN 0-271-01694-9. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-10-04.
Walton, Douglas (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-40878-6.

Template

This is the sandbox page for User:Sharkingbark.