Download Recognizing Fallacies

¶ Writing Center at Southeastern
Recognizing Fallacies
A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning resulting in an invalid or unfair argument. A fallacious argument may seem to prove its
conclusion, but does not. A writer who uses fallacies unintentionally is not thinking clearly while a writer who uses fallacies
intentionally is either biased or deceived (fallere in Latin). Readers and writers should learn to recognize common fallacies—
challenging them when reading, avoiding them when writing, and always naming them when found.
Fallacies of Logos (Reason)
Non sequitur
Post hoc fallacy
Begging the question
Excluded middle
False analogy
Reductionism
Naturalistic fallacy
Hasty generalization
Reification
Sweeping
generalization
Cherry Picking
Appeal to ignorance
Deductive fallacy meaning it does not follow: Arriving at a conclusion that does not logically follow
from its premises. “Bill is a good businessman, so he will make a good deacon, too.”
Deductive fallacy of doubtful cause: A came before B; therefore, A caused B. “Roosters crow just
before the sun rises; therefore, roosters cause the sun to rise.” (Association ≠ causation.)
Deductive fallacy: Assuming the premise and conclusion at the same time; circular reasoning;
exemplified in definition by opposition (e.g., faith/reason). “Why did it survive?” “Because it is the
fittest.” “How do you know it is the fittest?” “Because it survived.”
Deductive fallacy: Oversimplifying a complex issue as if only two viable options exist, thus failing to
consider a range of middle options; also called false dilemma and either/or question. “How can we
support international humanitarian missions when the need at home is so urgent?”
Deductive fallacy: Assuming that since events are similar in some ways, they are similar in other
ways; comparing “apples and oranges”; called the historian’s fallacy. Reporter: “Mr. President, Some
people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire.” President: “I think the analogy
is false and sends the wrong message to our troops” (Bush, 2006).
Deductive fallacy: Reducing form to mere matter; changing life to material. “For the truth is that when
you have stripped off what the human heart actually was in this or that culture, you are left with a
miserable abstraction totally unlike the life really lived by any human being” (C.S. Lewis).
Deductive fallacy: Assuming that nature is the norm for human behavior. “If evolution is true, then we
ought to practice Social Darwinism” (argument of the Nazi regime).
Inductive fallacy: Jumping to a conclusion based on too little evidence; being judgmental, partisan, or
prejudiced, for stereotypes are hasty generalizations about groups of people. “Ten Arab Muslims
bombed the World Trade Center, so the message is clear: all Arab Muslims are violent.”
Attributing a personal characteristic to an abstraction; personifying a concept. “Creationists say the
world was created supernaturally, but science says otherwise.” “The Bible supports my view.”
Inductive fallacy: Claiming a qualitative conclusion that cannot be supported no matter how much
quantitative evidence is supplied. “Only those who read the Bible daily will grow in faith.”
Inductive fallacy: Selecting evidence tending to support one’s hypothesis while ignoring evidence
tending to refute it; biased sample. “Racism no longer exists, and all of my white friends agree.”
Inductive fallacy: Claiming that a thesis is true because it cannot be proved false, or vice versa, thus
ignoring that some theses may never be proved or disproved with certainty. “Every human action is
predetermined since no one has proved that humans have free will.”
Fallacies of Êthos (Character)
Ad hominem
Guilt by association
Poisoning the well
False authority
Dogmatism
Moral equivalency
Attacking a person rather than his or her argument; literally argument to the person. “I believe that
abortion is wrong.” “Of course you do, you’re religious.” “What about my good arguments?” “Those
don’t count. Like I said, you’re religious, so you’re supposed to say that abortion is wrong.”
Attacks credibility by linking a person, perspective, or issue with what an audience considers bad.
“Issues of social justice are often supported by liberals (so conservatives should resist social justice).”
Attacking preemptively what others might later claim; supplying any information that may produce a
biased result. “Everything he may say is false because he is an ___ist.” “Religions are fables.”
Appealing to an expert when out of his or her field of expertise. “Since ‘Dr. J’ drinks Dr. Pepper, you
should drink Dr. Pepper, too.”
Attacking character to discredit trust that must exist between those who engage in dialogue.
“You promote hate, so we will not speak with you.” “No rational person would disagree that . . .”
Similar fallacies include misrepresentation, straw-man argument, and hasty generalization.
Comparing a minor misdeed with a major atrocity to discredit a policy on moral grounds. A senator
compares the attack on Pearl Harbor to America’s actions in Iraq (America Back on Track, 2009).
Citation: The Writing Center at Southeastern, “Recognizing Fallacies” (Wake Forest, NC: WC@SE, 2016).
¶ Writing Center at Southeastern
Fallacies of Pathos (Emotion)
Bandwagon appeal
Scare tactics
False analogy
Appeal to force
Appeal to pity
Seeking to establish a thesis based on the quantity of people who believe it (zeitgeist) or who have
believed it in the past (tradition). “Evolution must be right because most scientists believe it.”
Seeking to force an idea or action by veiled threats. “If Congress does not pass the seven-billion-dollar
bill, then the mortgage industry will fail.” (Fear that is not based in fact is a fraud.)
Proposing an analogy meant to enflame fear. “We are experiencing the worst economic decline since
the Great Depression.”
Stating an implicit or explicit threat. “When considering my grade, Dr. Evans, please keep in mind that
my father is the Dean (your boss). Thanks.”
Using emotional appeals that are irrelevant to the topic. “When considering my grade, Dr. Keathley,
please keep in mind that I have two kids and work two part-time jobs! Thanks.”
Fallacies of Language (Ambiguity)
Straw-man
argument
Misleading context
Slanted language
Slanted question
Red herring
Equivocation
Proper-meaning
fallacy
Making a misrepresentation of an opposing argument, such as a ridiculous or overly simplified version
of it, and then refuting that straw argument instead of the real argument. “Intelligent design is simply
religion in disguise.” “Evolution is simply Victorian mythology.”
Omitting context to hide information; thus the maxim: A text without a context is a pretext. “Wall of
separation between church and state,” for instance, derives from the Protestant Reformation with
specific usage in Thomas Jefferson’s 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, a context that changes
the phrase’s meaning from today’s perceived meaning of that phrase.
Slanting language to create a biased mood and perception; a form of circular reasoning that describes
and evaluates at once. “Pro-choice” vs. “anti-choice.” “I am firm, you are stubborn, he is pigheaded.”
Framing a research question to obtain a desired answer and to skew statistics; thus the maxim: He who
poses the question wins the debate. “Don’t you think people are entitled to universal health care?” vs.
“Do you think we should be forced to pay for socialized medicine?”
Introducing a loaded word or argument that distracts an audience from the actual issue; an irrelevant
distraction. To a religious audience: “My opponent has quoted a famous atheist.”
Shifting the meaning of a key word or phrase (a homonym: double identity of a single term) during the
course of an argument. “Your argument is very sound; in fact, it is nothing but sound.”
Claiming or assuming that words have an essential nature and meaning apart from context; assuming a
direct link between words and the things (copy theory of language) rather than finding that meaning is
a function of discourse (not, that is, of dictionaries). “Just the facts, Ma’am” (Sgt. Joe Friday).
“The essential nature of law is obedience or punishment” (rather than its social function of peace).
Fallacies of Exêgêsis (Bible-Study Blunders)
Word-study fallacy
Reading between the
lines
Ignoring particles
Illegitimate totality
transfer
Evidential fallacy
Superior knowledge
Reduction fallacy
New Testament
exclusion
Fallacy of language: Considering only the literal meaning of individual words, thus discounting
context, such as situation, syntax, tone, and style, which help determine meaning or usage in context.
Fallacy of language: Considering what is implied rather than what is stated in a text, including
unwarranted personal associations.
Fallacy of language: Failing to recognize the distinctive importance of small words, especially the
semantic range of particles, when interpreting a text’s meaning in context.
Fallacy of language: Transferring all the meanings of a given word into any passage; extending the
meaning of a word in one context to others in its semantic range in conflict with its context.
Fallacy of êthos: Presuming a text is inaccurate until corroborated by external evidence for verification
of its statements; analogous to guilty until proven innocent in judicial contexts.
Fallacy of êthos: Presuming a text has a fault rather than a reader’s own (mis)understanding of it and
rather than researching to find a reasonable answer to a perceived difficulty in a text.
Logical fallacy: Reducing a text to its abridged meaning or subject-matter, thereby ignoring form,
style, tone, and situation.
Logical fallacy: Failing to recognize the unit or whole when interpreting parts of the canon, thus
ignoring implicit meanings that are explicit in later texts; also ignoring the central principle of biblical
interpretation: scripture interprets scripture.
Citation: The Writing Center at Southeastern, “Recognizing Fallacies” (Wake Forest, NC: WC@SE, 2016).