Type: informal

Ad Hominem is one of the most obviously seen informal fallacies. Attacking the personal characteristics of the person, instead of directly addressing the argument itself.

• “I think the government should stop increasing the national debt.”

• “Well you’re an orange misogynist.”

Type: formal

When there is an assumption that a condition is true because the preceeding part of the condition is true. It is a formal logical fallacy and so can be noted as:

• If P then Q
• Q
• Therefore P

If someone crashes into your car it can damage it.

Your car is damaged.

Therefore someone crashed into you.

Type: informal

When the conclusion about one of two mutually exclusive options is true just because the other option is false. It is especially distinguished by affirming a disjunction. It is often committed together with the false dichotomy.

• Either P or Q (when either creates disjunction)
• Not P
• Therefore Q

"Either he is studying or not studying for the exam. Therefore he must be playing video games."

Type: informal

When the statement contains unclear or ambiguous language which leaves room for misrepresentation and uncertainty

“Switch to vaping. It’s better.”

‘better’ is simply ambigious

Type: informal

When personal experience or anecdotal evidence is used in place of statistically relevant or sound reasoning. It often ignores personalized factors that differntiate one case from another.

“I invested all my money in crypto and made millions, so if you want to be rich you should just do the same.”

“The keto diet is the best way to lose weight”

“I worked in a job that doesn’t respect me, the entire system is rigged to humiliate and exploit me because of my aptitude or lack of.”

Type: informal

Occurs when the claim’s validity is derived somehow from the accomplishment status or merit of the individual making the claim rather than the argument itself.

“You really think you know what makes a good parent better than Author X, who wrote Y books about family relationships?”

Type: informal

Similar to the Appeal to Authority, this occurs when the claim’s validity is derived somehow from the authoritative expertise of the individual making the claim rather than the argument.

“You really think you know better than the chief scientist of the WHO if the ___ is safe or not?”

Type: informal

When the validity for an argument’s outcome is derived from the repulsion of a perceived undesirable outcome.

“We can’t reduce taxation, what about all the people dependent on public medical care?”

Perhaps not valid in 2023 anymore but “I smoke because I want to fit in with my peers. If I don’t smoke then I’m at a disadvantage in socializing.”

Type: informal

This one is so commonly succesful that it’s even used as a primary legal defense in criminal courts. When the validity for an argument is attempted to be persuaded by virtue of the negative emotions the argument elicits. The more unfortunate the situation, the more powerful it is.

“Our little girl is very sick, and therefore you must help us first. In fact, let me start this online fundraiser for $2,000,000. We can’t possible afford this operation which may give her a chance. Any amount helps. No refunds. Why would you want a refund anyways? Don’t you see how hard of a time this is for our family? "

“The defendent did kill those 3 boys but what could he do? He was raised by an abusive father, neglected by his mother, and left to fend for himself since he was a teenager. How would you feel if your only salvation was drugs and starting fires? "

Type: flexible

This is seen when there is not enough evidence, logical reasoning, or any other type of framework to begin to approach discovering the knowledge required to know the answer, so the conclusion is derived from the lack of proof for the counter.

“There are things science just doesn’t know, psychic powers haven’t been unproven either. Psychics definitely exist. "

Type: informal

What do Eco friendly dreadlocked millenials and advertising departments share in common the most? The assumption that what is ’natural’ (anyways a contentious premise) is always superior to something either synthetic or man-interfered of course!

“You should really not let your baby use a diaper, for millenia we defecated in our mothers’ laps.”

Type: informal

Probably one of the most accepted fallacies in the modern world because of its power to influence consumer behavior. Often the scarecrow to the rebellious stance of the appeal to nature pundit, it’s assuming that just because something is modern or technologically advanced that it must be the superior option.

“The iphone 30 came out so I should buy it because I’m still on the iphone 27” “I’ll take this fad pill that combats obesity, relying on other approaches are so outdated and slow”

“As a company we’re pivoting to this newer ‘agile’ approach, we need to hire scrum masters!”

Type: informal

It’s even funny that this should be noted as a fallacy, but it occurs when the reaction to an argument or concept is met with outrage, or an otherwise dismissive expression as its sole premise. Sometimes people can use this together with charisma to persuade others into an idea. The more reputable, likeable, or famous, the more powerful the success of this fallacy in going over people’s heads.

“Did you hear what this guy’s been saying about drug laws? It’s asburd!”

“Seriously? You didn’t cook enough for everyone? That’s ridiculous”

“It’s just awful, you know how it is, I don’t like to cut in line but I can’t take it anymore. "

“This painting sucks! "

Type: informal

Although millenials and zoomers have more disconnect from their predecessors than any other known generation, the approach to maintain tradition to a T still exists. It is the assumption that just beacuse something has been done or thought about in a way traditionally, it is the proper direction.

“I am circumcized, my father was circumcized, my grandfather, my great great… please don’t tell me we’re not going to circumcize our baby! It’s just what we do! It’s what we’ve always done!”

“The educational system educates our children well, if it wasn’t good it wouldn’t have been unchanged for hundreds of years”

Type: flexible

Occurs when the conclusion is deduced from an association of traits which don’t necessarily lead to the first premise. It can have n associations.

• D ∈ G
• G → T
• ∴ P → T

In the above symbolic logic form it is something like: This dog belongs to a group called dogs. Dogs are known to share barking as a trait, which has other associations like aggression. Therefore the dog is aggressive.

" These pants really flatter celebrity X’s shape. If I wear them I will get the same positive attention and societal affirmation that she does! "

Type: informal

When an argument’s stance is assessed based on the motives or biases of the person making the argument.

" I think we can just eat pasta and some cucumbers tonight."

" You’re just saying that because you don’t want to get groceries!"

Type: informal

Often the burden of proof is erroneously thrown onto the other participant of the conversation.

• “There’s a brown spider on your shoulder.”

• “I don’t see it. Did it go down my back?”

• “No, it’s there, but it’s invisible.”

In this example, the burden of proof is on the one stating the claim since the empirical evidence suggests that there are no such thing as invisible spiders.

Type: informal

When the stance for an argument is chosen by some specific exclusion of criteria or evidence that exists within the argument as well.

“This app is a part of the top 100 most used in the lifestyle category!”

Unfortunately the selection size is just about 30 people, so this doesn’t mean much.

Type: informal

Oh boy is this one common in academia and the workplace. When an idea or argument is dismissed based on its age. This generally favors older (the chronological antecedent) of the ideas.

" Classical music is boring feels old."

" You should use POSTMan or some othe restful API helper, they just have way more features since they’re newer than a basic curl request, even if you don’t need it, it’s better. "

“This movie sucks, was it even made after 2020? Those suits the characters are wearing are so outdated and really need a glow up in 2024.”

Type: formal

Often tautological, this occurs when the proposed conclusion is assumed within the premise, which is used to support the conclusion.

“We are good because we work hard! and we work hard because we are good!”

“The code works because it says X. It says X because it was written to work.”

(A→B)∧(B→A)

Type: informal

Similar to the ad hominem, it also ignores the merit of the argument to focus on personal characteristics or traits of the person. In this case, its focus is regarding the personal circumstances of the person making the attack.

“I think the government should stop increasing the national debt.”

" You only think that because you’re young and have no idea how global geopolitical influences affect economic need and decisions. "

Type: informal

When there is an assumption that what is true for a part is also true for the whole.

• The seeds of chilis are notoriously spicey, but it would be a composition fallacy to assume that every other part of the chili is just as spicey.

• This snake’s venom is super poisonous, so I assume all snake’s venom is super poisonous. (thoguh this sounds more like trauma, and not a particularly unhelpful fallacy, you get the idea).

“2/2 people I talked to in this town today have been very helpful and kind. This is a very kind town.”

Type: informal

This fallacy comes from the assumption that if there is no specific point in which properties differ, then they are the same.

There is no exact second you can define when a child turns into an adult, but it certainly happens at some point. Just because this point is not able to be defined, does not mean it doesn’t exist.

There is infinite distances between your body and the door, if you divide the distance now, then take a step, and divide that distance, etc. You will eventually still pass through the door.

Type: rhetorical critique

This is more of an ad hominem divergent, but it’s noted by rejecting an argument or critique of the claim maker due to either inexperience or lack of expertise in the subject matter.

“You can’t criticize religion without an adequate understanding of theology, your arguments are simply naive.”

“You didn’t watch enough anime to understand how deep this is”

Type: informal

When the insistance on dictionary definitions which are out of context or improperly scoped are the used as argument against a claim.

“Artistic expression is defined as the manifestation of one’s imagination and creativity. Therefore, your critique of this modern artwork is unfounded.”

Type: formal

The inverse of Affirming the consequent. If the antecdent (the compared to if) of a conditional is false, then the consequent must be false.

• P → Q
• ¬P
• ∴ ¬Q

Landlords be damned:

• P → Q (If a person is a cat owner, then they have a pet.)
• ¬ P (Not a cat owner.)
• ∴ ¬Q (Therefore, not a pet owner.)

Type: formal

The inverse of composition fallacy. It occurs when one assumes that what is true for a whole is also inherently true for its parts.

• A is a property of the whole (A is true for the entire set or group)
• ∴ Each part of the whole also has property A

“Hungary is super poor! You must all be eating slop and living in huts!”

“Denmark is super rich! How many butlers helped you get dressed today?”

“We received positive feedback from our customers, therefore we are all doing a great job. This year we will have special bonuses for the board members!”

Type: data inference

This is a quite common interpretation fault. It’s about drawing assumptive conclusions on invidiual instances of an aggregate and assuming that will carry through. It’s similar to the composition fallacy, but the emphasis here is more on the differentiation between scalar and aggregate data, or rather the acceptance of aggregate data as being enough to ignore the individual variance within it.

• A study finds some relevant distasteful data in regards to certain groups people in an area.

• The conclusion is made that all people belonging to this group have this finding.

• This ‘fallacy’ ignores the reality of statistical noise when it comes to individual selections of an aggregate. There’s often a not non-significant amount of noise that make assuming blanketly a bad call when it comes to life decisions (Where to live, what to eat, who to make friends with)

Type: rhetorical critique

When the way out of an argumentative stance or conflict is to resolve with “Well, that’s just your opinion, man.”

“There is a lot of evidence that gender reassignment surgery is mostly a failure in facilitating the mental health recovery of people undergoing that surgery”.

" In my opinion it does help."

Type: informal

This is when a term is used with several meanings in the same argument in an atempt to flex the meaning into morphing their reasoning.

" Our revolutionary colon-cleansing product will cleanse your colon thoroughly, leaving you feeling lighter and ready to tackle the world!"

Cleanse is used with slight variation in the second tense, it creates a graph between what ‘cleanse’ means in terms of the physical detoxification, and mixes it with the sense of well-being associated with a febreeze advertisement.

Type: informal

Where equivocation is more focused on the mis-steps of word meaning, etymological fallacy falls straights into the pits of ben shapiro’s lasers.

“This tastes awful”

" Hm..I don’t find it particularly awe inspiring. "

Type: informal

It’s a type that occurs when someone concludes that a claim must be totally false because one or more arguments associated with it or within don’t hold up. It’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It’s a general descriptor about falling prey to one of any fallacies that may appear in an argument by using it as reason enough to conclude its true state.

" The bible is true because it says so, and we know it’s true because it’s the word of God."

If you reject the above circular reasoning fallacy, it can still be the case that you fall to the fallacy fallacy.

Type: informal

When a situation or argument is oversimplified to the point it is no longer represented by multiple variables, and then a single cause is used to wrap it all up, you can be sure that’s the fallacy of the single cause.

" Low test scores in schools in this area are because of : "

• bad teachers
• underfunded teachers
• racial divergence in IQ
• poor academic culture …

Pick one and you’ve heard this before. A straightforward to explain problem does not always have a simple explanation.

Type: flexible

This fallacy occurs when a causal connection is made between two happenings just because it’s sequential.

If A happens before B, then A must have caused B:

• Rain dances

• Superstitions (of all kinds)

• hitting every red light on your way home and feeling all your bad karma sneak up on you at once

Type: informal

Characterized by a situation with multiple options, it’s the oversimplification of the issue presented as just 2 ways (di-chotomy), leading to a morphing of the original situation, and often leaving out context.

" Is you a crip or is you a blood? "

" What was I supposed to do? I had to steal that candy vape at the store my nicotine craze was just going out of control!"

Type: informal

As the name suggests, this is when there are two proposed concepts that are combined as equivalent, wherein a further deduction on the grounds that they are the same is met.

“I spent all night up with the baby, I can’t really come out for a walk right now”

“I understand, I had a really big meal and couldn’t sleep for a while last night, I know how tough it must be, but it’s just a walk!”

Type: informal

Another fallacy who’s name is identical with its description. When the analogy between two things does not accurately depict the situation.

“Your brain is just like a computer if you look at it with an EMG. Thoughts are basically analogous to processes running on a computer, both driven by electric impulses.”

• This viewpoint takes broad stabs and even ignores flatly the concept of consciousness. It’s a brutally materialistic view of the world.

Type: informal

Despite what its name suggests, it isn’t quite limited to biology. This is when you take previous experiences, or a prior point of time to evaluate a situation instead of assessing it on its current state.

Chinese electronic hardware sucks, I can’t believe this thing didn’t melt like my chinese router from 2003

It could, and probably still does suck, but you can’t accurately judge it based on merit if you assume this outright.

Type: informal

Hasty Generalization occurs when an instantiated leap from a pattern or signal is applied to a situation. It’s a more general fallacy that describes being hasty. Big surprise I know.

“The premium on my car insurance from this provider is far cheaper than the other, I should switch over to it straight away!”

Type: informal

This happens generally as a judgmenet to things in reference to historical events or things that occur chronologically before the current time. A concept or person is judged on information that wasn’t available then, and consequentially is judged on the basis of full information in the present.

“I can’t believe people believed in miasma and didn’t wash their hands nearly as frequently. Germs make so much more sense”

“Insane how they viewed lobotomy as an actually recommended operation used in treating certain illnesses”

Type: informal

A very common rhetorical device, probably trained as such by colloquial mannerisms. It’s a conclusion to an argument that is unrelated to the premise.

“You should really finish your food; There are starving kids in Africa!”

Type: informal

An easy to overlook fallacy for so many snapshot evaluations that we have in the modern world. It’s the fallacy of comparing apples to oranges. When two or more things are compared without taking into consideration the key differences, and only the similarities of a single or set of traits.

“This computer has a slightly higher clock speed, it must be better. " (Ignores hyperthreading, architecture, memory bandwidth etc)

“Let’s hire this guy, he has a Phd over the rest of these guys who have less formal qualifications) (Perhaps he has little work experience in the field and thus will move slowly)

Type: Rhetorical device

A powerful rhetorical device that draws a conclusion based on an exaggerated claim that doesn’t necessarily hold true when magnified. It’s often used by media to polarize and set the narrative of 2 or more competing camps. It leaves little to no room for the middle section of less opinionated sides.

“Healthcare reform is at an incredibly tense moment in the current environment. Two sides exist: stark reform or nothing! "

“The US is a battleground for politics. Policy makers, citizens, and lobbyists are fighting tooth and nail over policy A/B/C”

As we saw in coronavirus, or most recently the recent wars, because of inflaction of conflict, we are left with no room for a middling opinions and culturally all must be expected to be polarized.

The key spear-tip of this fallacy is the slogan:

“Either you’re with us or against us”