LOGICAL FALLACIES.

What is a logical fallacy ?

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument.
Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified
because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your
own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

A 'logical fallacy' is a structural, or purely formal defect in an argument. Logical fallacies fall
into two varieties: invalid arguments, and circular arguments.

Primary types of logical fallacies

Invalid Arguments

An argument is said to be valid if and only if the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of
the conclusion. It is invalid if and only if the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the
premises. It is important to realize that calling an argument 'valid' is not the same as saying its
conclusion is true. Logic does not concern itself with the content of an argument - only its
form. From the standpoint of logic, the following is a perfectly valid argument:

(p1) Dinosaurs are still living;

(p2) If Dinosaurs are still living, then Elvis is still living;

(c1) Therefore, Elvis is still living.

If the two premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. You and I, of course, know that
these premises are not in fact true (in the normal sense of words, that is. Strictly scientifically
speaking, all birds are dinosaurs, so premise 1 is true. This does, however, not make premise
2 any more true) - but their falsity is not a matter of pure logic. Simply because somebody
says something false, it does not follow that that person has committed a logical fallacy.

Valid arguments fall into two categories: sound and unsound. A sound argument is a valid
argument with true premises. An unsound argument is a valid argument with false premises.
The above argument about dinosaurs is unsound.

Invalid arguments will always be logically fallacious. By way of example, the following are
invalid arguments:

(p1) If x is a human male, then x is a human;

(p2) x is not a human male;

(c1) Therefore, x is not human.

1
(p1) If July is before June, then George Bush is the thirty-second president of the United
States;

(p2) July is not before June;

(c1) Therefore, George Bush is not the thirty-second president of the United States.

Each of these arguments are invalid because they are of the form:

(p1) If A, then B

(p2) not-A

(c1) Therefore, not-B,

which is an invalid logical structure. Simply because the 'if'-clause of an 'if, then' statement is
false does not mean that the 'then'-clause is false.

Circular Arguments

Circular Arguments are valid, but they are still considered logical fallacies. More accurately,
they are simply useless - they establish nothing that they do not presuppose. The following
are simple examples of circular arguments:

(p1) San Fransisco is in California;

(c2) Therefore, San Fransisco is in California.

(p1) Nobody likes Cherries;

(p2) If anyone liked cherries, then it wouldn't be the case that nobody likes cherries;

(c1) Therefore, nobody likes cherries.

(p1) God exists;

(p2) God knows everything;

(p3) God is not a liar;

(p4) God wrote the Bible;

(p5) The Bible says that God exists;

(c1) Therefore, God exists.

2
Because these argument must assume what they are attempting to prove, they are logically
superfluous. In each case, the argument provides absolutely no support for the conclusion.
We might just as well have stated the conclusion without argument. Most often, circular
arguments hide their circularity by keeping one of their premises implicit, as in the following:

(p1) God is not a liar;

(p2) God wrote the Bible;

(p3) The Bible says that God exists;

(c1) Therefore, God exists.

Though it does not explicitly say so, this argument obviously depends upon a suppressed
premise - namely, that God exists. More accurately, no one would accept the premises unless
they had already accepted the conclusion.

Certain types of argumentation may be wrong or misleading without thereby constituting a

'logical fallacy.' It may be terrible to tell someone: 'agree with me or you will die,' but it is not
terrible because of its logical structure. Similarly, we may feel that certain groups are too
easily convinced to believe something or too quick to adopt a political position on the basis of
emotion. However, their doing so does not constitute a logical fallacy.

(1) Ad Hominem
Latin Translation: 'Against the man' or 'Against the person'.

Definition: A fallacious attack against a claim or an argument on the basis of an irrelevant

fact regarding the presenting claim or argument.

How Ad Hominem works:

1) Person A makes claim X.

2) Person B disregards the claim and attacks person A.

3) Therefore A's claim is false.

Examples

Person A: I believe that Anarchy as a social structure, though well presented on paper,
is an unachievable goal due to negative aspects of human nature.

Person B: You only think that because you're a Socialist.

I couldn't care less what that fat pig, Michael Moore has to say.

3
Current Implications

Ad Hominem is now a standard practice in mainstream media/editorial. Polarizing public

opinion is often accomplished by sweeping generalization: What do you expect from a
liberal?. This technique takes Ad Hominem a step further and seeks to create or demonize a
particular social categorization, associate the person with such a group, and as a result
discount the individual and the value of his opinion. When you see people refer to others by
these generalized groups (secularist, atheist, liberal, conservative, hippy, etc.) be wary of the
veiled attempt at ad hominem.

For example, in mainstream America, Christians have erroneously tried to associate atheism
with satanism, and therefore seek to discredit the identity of an atheist as more of the evil
opposite of Christianity, than what it really is, a lack of belief in all such supernatural
mythology. In this manner, the reference to atheism, in the eyes of a misinformed Christian,
is an ad hominem.

Video Demonstrations

Nobody does Ad Hominems more frequently than Fox New's Bill O'Reilly:

Variations on Ad Hominem

Needling

Needling is an attempt to antagonize, annoy or anger your opponent. This can be used as a
delaying tactic or to throw them off. It often involves the use of ad hominem insults or
insinuations.

Straw Man

Many ad hominem attacks involve creating a straw man -- an exaggerated caricature of a

person, position or issue and attributing that to the person being attacked.

(2) Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Latin Translation: 'Against the man' or 'Against the person' - 'You, too'.

Definition: This common fallacy is executed when a person concludes an argument or claim
is false because 1) the argument or claim is inconsistent with the actions of the user 2) or the
argument or claim is inconsistent with something else the person has said.

General Information: The inconsistencies of a persons arguments or claims does not make
ones particular claims false. Furthermore, the inconsistencies of a persons actions in regards
to their arguments or claims are also to be disregarded when assessing the validity of ones
particular claim.

Fallacy Structure:

1) Person A makes claim X.

4
2) Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the trust of claim X.

3) Therefore A's claim is false.

Example:

Person A: John MacLennon would make a fine candidate for the board of the CIAA.

Person B: You might be right.

Person A: However, I'm going to vote for Barry Whitehorse.

Person B: John MacLennon couldn't possibly make such a fine candidate for the board if
you're not voting for him.

(3) Appeal to Belief

AKA: Appeal to Majority

Definition: Presenting an argument or a claim on the basis that the majority of people believe
the same thing.

General Information:

Fallacy Structure:

1) The majority or people believe claim X to be true.

2) Therefore claim X is true.

Example:

Person A: The majority of the American population believes that even if Jesus was not the
son of the Christian god, there was a man named Jesus who existed and was crucified
approximately 33CE. Therefore, Jesus must have existed.

(4) Appeal to Common Practice

Definition: An action, which has its validity resting on the common practice of its use, is
correct.

General Information: The common practice of an action has no bearing on its stance of
morality.

Fallacy Structure:

1) Z is a common action

5
2) Therefore, Z is correct, moral, justified, reasonable, etc.

Example:

Person A: He was not a child molester because it was common practice to have sexual
relations with females at a young age 1400 years ago in the middle-east.

(5) Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

This argument is based on holding that what a person "wishes" to be true, must be true,
because the alternative is too undesirable to consider.

Let's examine the illogic of this claim. A useful tool for uncovering the fallacious nature of an
argument is through substituting new premises into the form of the argument:

A parachute offering me an escape from the horrible fall I am now experiencing after being
tossed from the empire state building must exist; because if it doesn't, what will happen to me
when I hit the ground?

Clearly, our own hopes and desires for a thing does not make it so.

Here is a classic example of this fallacy:

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has
not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then
found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ
from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are
not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith
is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If
only for this life we have hope in Christ, then we are to be pitied more than all men." (1
Corinthians 15:13-19, NIV)

In other words, if you don't believe Christ was raised from the dead, then we must face the
painful reality that the dead are merely dead.

Copi, I. M, Cohen, C., (2001), "Introduction to Logic", 11th Edition.

(6) Appeal to Emotion

Definition

An appeal to emotion is the attempt to use emotional arguments instead of logic to support a
conclusion.

Examples

"Think of the children"

"Support our troops"

6
 (7) Appeal to Fear

Definition

An appeal to fear is the attempt to use fear instead of logic to support a conclusion. The
conclusion is often unrelated to the fear tactic and the conclusion is usually presented as the
only alternative.

Examples

"If you don't believe in Nyi Roro Kidul then she will come and kill you."
"Terrorists caused X to happen. We have to go to war with country Y to prevent
terrorism."

(8) Appeal to Flattery

Definition

An appeal to flattery is an attempt to use flattering gestures to curry favour for an unrelated
goal.

Examples

Paying excessive compliments to someone before asking them to do something for

you.

(9) Appeal to Novelty

Definition

An appeal to novelty is an attempt to make a claim appear true simply because it involves
something new or current.

Examples

"Christianity is the one, true religion because it supercedes all the pagan gods."
"This product is new and improved. You can't live without it."

(10) Appeal to Pity

Definition

An appeal to pity is an attempt to use the other party's pity instead of logic to support a
conclusion or claim. The argument does not necessarily have to be false but is generally
unrelated to the conclusion.

7
Examples

Telling a traffic officer: "I'm having a really bad day, I don't deserve a speeding
ticket."

(11) Appeal to Popularity

In this argument things are presumed to be true because the majority believes that it is true.
However, it's important to realise that the majority cannot "elect" the truth, truth exists
independently whether people believe it or not. We can be sure that the vast majority believed
the Earth was flat at 1500BCE, yet if a lot of people believe in something this doesn't make it
to be true.

Example: "Surely billions of people can't be wrong regarding the existence of alien".

Claims requires evidence, and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Anybody who watches someone like David Copperfield's grand illusions knows how easy it
is to fool people. However it should be noted that there's a big difference between an appeal
to popularity and to an argument from an expert, for if an astronomer says that the Earth
revolves around the Sun then we can be more certain he's correct for he investigated the
subject with skepticism and looked at the evidence.

(12) Appeal to Ridicule

Also known as: Appeal to Shame, Argument From Shame

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." --
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816

An appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy that tries to present the opponent's argument in a way
that makes it appear ludicrous to the extent that it becomes a Straw Man.

Examples "The theory of evolution says we came from apes, that's CRAZY"

This argument mocks the opponent's argument and tries to resort to an Appeal to Emotion by
claiming the opponent's argument is nonsensical. Although they appear very similar, this
fallacy should not be confused with reductio ad absurdum, which is a valid type of logical
argument. It should also not be confused with ridiculing the person making the argument,
which is a form of the ad hominem fallacy.

Why does ridicule influence people ?

It's no secret you can short-circuit somebody's brain with shame. How many of us were
shamed into doing something stupid in high school?

But why does it work? There are these primitive, lower parts of your brain called amygdalae
that controls base, emotional reactions. That's where things like contempt and shame come
from, and stimulating it can completely shut down the analytical part of your brain. The gang
calls you a coward and the next thing you know, you're wedging a roman candle between
your buttcheeks. You'll show them!
8
You can thank evolution for that. Way back when humans started forming groups and tribes,
social status was everything. It's what guaranteed you food, protection and ladies (that is, a
chance to pass on your genes). Mockery developed as a "conformity enforcer" to keep people
in line.

Making a person, idea or behavior the target of mockery gave it a lower social position, and
made it clear that anybody who associated with it would share that lower position, leaving
them out of the hunting/eating/fucking that made life in the tribe worthwhile. Thousands of
years later, a good dose of mockery can shut down critical thinking and make us fall right in
line, no questions asked.

Examples

"So now they're telling us that--get this, folks--global warming is caused by cows
farting! Priceless!"

"And then he said we could save gas by inflating our tires! I couldn't make this stuff
up, folks!"

(13) Appeal to Spite

Definition

An appeal to spite is an attempt to use spite or malice instead of logic to support a conclusion
or claim.

Examples

"You didn't support my measure so I am not going to support yours."

(14) Appeal to Tradition

Definition

An appeal to tradition is an attempt to use tradition or common practice instead of logic to

support a conclusion or claim.

The premise and the conclusion may both be true, but the premise does not necessarily
support the conclusion.

This form of argument is particularly appealing to people who are opposed to change.

Examples

"Gays have never been allowed to marry. Gay marriage is wrong."

See Also

The opposite appeal is the Appeal to Novelty.

9
 (15) Argument from authority
Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that
a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly
regarded as authoritative.

Examples

The church says the Earth is flat, therefor the Earth is flat.

Discussion

Latin Translation: 'Argument to respect' AKA 'Appeal to Authority'.

Definition: An argument or claim is fallacious when the person presenting it is not a

legitimate authority on the subject in question and presents their argument or claim on the
basis of their authority.

General Information: The argument or claim on the subject is flawed because the claim of
its legitimacy does not provide any evidence or justification for the claim. The argument or
claim may be true, but the fact that an unqualified person has made the argument or claim
does not provide justification for accepting the argument or claim to be true.

Fallacy Structure: 1) Person A makes a claim to be an authority on subject Y. 2) Person A

makes claim X on subject Y. 3) Therefore claim X is true.

Example: Person A: I am an expert on the subject of evolution. (False claim) Person A:

Homo Sapiens evolved from chimpanzees. (False claim)

or

Person A: I am a historian. (False claim) Person A: It was Napoleon Bonaparte who said, "If I
had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal giver of life would be my god." (True claim)

(16) Bandwagon

Definition

The bandwagon fallacy is an attempt to use peer pressure instead of logic to support a
conclusion or claim.

Examples

"All of my class mates are doing drugs. If I don't do drugs they will reject me."

10
 (17) Biased Sample
Also known as foundational bias. In this fallacy you are biased towards a certain conclusion
before making arguments or looking at the evidence. It's not based on logic or science but
rather on personal preference and preconceptions

Examples:

"No one can convince me"

"There's no way you can prove to me"

Anyone with this kind of closed-minded stubbornness can hardly be trusted because this
opens the way for all logical fallacies easily without second thoughts even if it looks very
fallacious and obvious to an objective observer the people arguing with biased samples would
find a hard time solving it. This isn't the way an argument should tend to, for a real skeptic
demands to be convinced with evidence, it's important to note that opinions are meaningless
in the face of evidence

(18) Burden of Proof

Burden Of Proof

The argument usually goes like this:

Theist: I believe that god exists.

Atheist: Prove it.

Theist: You prove he doesnt.

Is it fair to ask the atheist to disprove gods existence?

Suppose I take Bob to court with the claim that I hold an IOU which indicates that he owes
me a sum of money. It is incumbent upon me to produce evidence for the IOUs existence
and if I fail to do so, Bob walks free. Imagine the situation if I told the judge that I have proof
that the IOU exists but it is Bobs responsibility to disprove the existence of that evidence.
If that request for disproof is accepted, Bob could immediately declare that he has new
evidence that proves me wrong and I need to disprove it. And I could retaliate with the
claim that there is additional evidence in my favor so the ball is back in Bobs court. He
needs to disprove my additional evidence. Already the argument has become farcical and
thats why disproof is never accepted in a court of law. The burden of proof always remains
with the person making the initial claim.

How does this apply to the question of gods existence? It would be fair to assume that the
theist and the atheist both agree that the universe exists, but the theist says that over and
above the universe there also exists a deity. Clearly the theist believes one more thing than
does the atheist and he is therefore required to produce evidence for his additional belief. If
11
no proof is forthcoming, the unbelieving atheist can safely assume that he is correct. There is
no need for him to prove that god does not exist. But wait a moment. Which god are we
talking about?

Which God ?

As it happens, the atheist made his first mistake by asking the theist to prove that god exists
without first asking for a description of god. He has to do that, or he wont know what he is
talking about. He might spend his time arguing against the existence of Mithra, only to
discover that the theist is defending a god named Osiris.

Christians, for example, are notorious for shifting the goal posts as the debate progresses.
They might start out by defending god as an old man sitting on a cloud and, when that
position becomes untenable, they declare that god is some sort of energy that exists
throughout the universe. And later still, they might redefine god is nature itself. Look at the
sunset and see god, or You can see god in a babys smile.

Clearly it is in the atheists best interests to establish exactly which god is being discussed.
Thats a completely different debate of course, but it has to be done. There is no point in
trying to prove or disprove the existence of a deity if neither party knows anything about it.

Proving A Negative

It has been established that the atheist has no need to prove that god does not exist, so why is
he often asked to do just that? The theist has probably heard that it is impossible to prove a
negative, so he figures he can score some easy debating points with a request for disproof.
After all, if the atheist is left with his mouth hanging open and nothing to say, then many
observers will assume that the theist has won and the atheist has lost.

Luckily though, despite popular opinion, it is not impossible to prove a negative. In fact it is
quite easy. Mathematicians long ago proved there is no even prime number greater than two
and just think how easily you could prove there are no coins in your piggy bank. So the
atheist is still in with a chance

The Problem Of Evil

Most theists (especially those who believe in the Christian god) will eventually agree that the
deity is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Most of them will also agree that evil
exists. (Hardly surprising since the subject is mentioned 613 times in 569 verses of the King
James Bible.) If the atheist can get agreement on these points, he can proceed as follows:

-If god doesnt know about evil, he is not omniscient.

-If god knows about evil but cannot stop it, he is not omnipotent.

-If god knows about evil and he can stop it but doesnt, he is not omnibenevolent.

12
QED: God does not exist.

Apologists have come up with dozens of explanations for this problem of evil as it is
known, but all of them have been successfully refuted and the conclusion holds good: God
does not exist.

Evil Does Not Exist

To give you an idea of how serious this problem is for religionists, it is worth pointing out
that some of them have actually suggested there is no such thing as evil everything that
happens is good. Some things are obviously not as good as others, but they are always good,
never evil. If a person is murdered by a serial killer, nothing evil has occurred. The victim
just happened to be in a place where there was a little less than the usual amount of good. Her
death was actually a good thing. Not quite as good as she may have hoped perhaps, but still
good. And the serial killer is not evil - he's actually good. Not as good as you and me, but still
good. The mere fact that apologists find it necessary to raise such a ludicrous defence of their
god is enough to suggest that the conclusions drawn from the problem of evil are far more
effective than any of them would dare to admit.

The Whole Edifice Crumbles

Now that we have proved that God does not exist, we can go on to say:

The bible is not the inspired word of God. It is an ordinary book written by ordinary men, and
no more important than that. Some will argue that it offers good advice like thou shalt not
steal and do unto others (and it should be revered for that reason), but the bible is not the
only source for such advice and remember that holy scripture also tells us to kill
disobedient children and old men who pick up sticks on the Sabbath. Clearly, the advice it
contains is not worth much.

And if God does not exist then neither does the Son of God, so the Jesus story is a complete
myth. Some may argue that a man named Jesus did exist about 2000 years ago and there is a
kernel of truth contained in the New Testament stories about him. But where is the truth in
those tales of the virgin birth, raising Lazarus from the dead, walking on water, resurrection
from death and ascension into heaven? Take away those obvious fables and what are we left
with? Not much. Certainly nothing of importance.

(19) Circular argument

Also known as Begging the Question, a circular argument is one that supposes the
proposition (directly or indirectly) within a preceding premise. Or more explicitly, a circular
argument makes a conclusion based on something that has already been presumed in the
argument.

Example

"The study of physics is beneficial because good physics makes for useful analysis."

13
Here, we can see that the statement seems quite reasonable until we place it into a more
explicit form:

"The study of physics is beneficial because physics makes for a beneficial study."

Where the argument is of the following form for assumption A,

Premise (1): A implies B

Premise (2): Suppose B

Conclusion: Therefore A

Examples that don't follow the circular argument fallacy

Person A: God doesn't exist.

Person B: Here is some historical evidence for the miracles of Jesus.

Person A: Miracles are impossible, therefore God doesn't exist.

Here, this argument doesn't follow the particular "A is B, thus A is B" format. Instead, it
appeals more to the "Argument from Personal Incredulity", which attributes that because one
personally finds a premise unlikely or absurd, the premise can be supposed to be untrue, or
that another favoured but unproven premise is true instead.

Kalam Cosmological argument

A noted example of circular argument is one known as "Kalam Cosmological argument".

Its structure is this:

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The refutation of the Kalam Cosmological argument is actually rather simple:

The first premise "begins to exist" implies that things that do not begin to exist do not need a
cause; they've always existed.

So, the challenge becomes to name some things that do not conform to this qualification,
things that have always existed.

"God" is the most ready response, but is there anything else in the category of things that do
not begin to exist? Is there any reason to think that there are?

14
If not, that is if god is the only thing that never began to exist, then the argument MUST read
thus:

1. Everything which is not god has a cause.

2. The universe is not god.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So, the person attempting to use Kalam to prove the existence of god is implicitly putting god
into the premise, thereby rendering the argument hopelessly circular.

(20) Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A circumstantial ad hominem is an argument in which you attack a person, or dismiss their

argument as invalid, on the basis of their circumstances. One example of this is Duane Gish's
claim that the only reason for the massive acceptance of evolution in the scientific
community is that "most scientists are unbelievers...".

(21) Composition

Is an argument involving improper reasoning moving from a fact about an individual member
of a group to a beleif about the entire group. Part->Whole Individual->Group

e.g. No men can lift a Hummer.

The UM defensive line is made of men.

The UM defensive line can not lift a Hummer

(22) Confusing Cause and Effect

Confusing cause and effect is one of the most common logical fallacies. It's a principal
component of most propaganda. It's also known as the correlation/causation error, Post
Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc or the false cause fallacy.

False Cause

This fallacy states:

If X happens and Y occurs, you can conclude that X is the cause of Y.

My knee aches just before it rains, therefore the ache in my knee is the cause of the rain. It is
consistent, repeatable, and accurate therefore it must be true.

Causal fallacies occur because of scientific ignorance (although in many cases, the fallacy is
intentionally misleading). The assumption is that two correlated phenomena have a causal
relationship. This fallacy occurs when we assume that because two things have either a
positive relationship (the more it rains, the more your knee aches) or a negative relationship

15
(The more you watch tv, the less you exercise) that this means that one thing is the CAUSE
of the other. This is not necessarily true, for while correlation is a necessary condition for
causality, it is not a sufficient reason for a causality.

Here are some more examples:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani prominently featured one such

myth in his speech Oct. 20 to a group of social conservatives. The former New York
City mayor stated that "we increased adoption by 133% over the eight years before I
came into office. And we found that abortions went down by 18% during that period of
time. I believe we can do that in the United States."

But Giuliani's implied causality between these two statistics is unsupportable for this
simple reason: The increases he cites were in the rate of adoptions of children out of
New York City's foster care system, not in the rate at which women were continuing
unwanted pregnancies and placing their infants for adoption rather than having
abortions. Nothing in the data he cites indicates that there was any significant
increase in the city's newborn relinquishment rate while he was mayor.

Rudy Giuliani is veritable fountain of causal logical fallacies. Here's another one:

"My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the
United States, 82%," Rudy says. "My chances of surviving prostate cancer in
England, only 44% under socialized medicine. You and I should be making the
decisions about what kind of health care we get with our doctors, not with a
government bureaucrat."

Here, Giuliani implies there's a direct causal relationship between the prostate cancer
survival rate and socialized medicine. Ridiculous. To add further insult to injury, the
statistics Giuliani cited are patently false.

In the spirit of Giuliani-logic, I'd like to present my own creative interpretation of

cause and effect:

Rudi Giuliani was mayor of New York City on 9/11/2001. The World Trade Center was
attacked on 9/11/2001. If Rudi Giuliani had not been the mayor of New York city, it
would not have been attacked. Isn't it time you re-thought what was Giuliani's real role
in the terrorist attacks?

More examples:

Mao Tse Tung and Josef Stalin were atheist, therefore all atheists are immoral,
genocidal dictators.
Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin wore mustaches, therefore all people who wear
mustaches are immoral, genocidal dictators.

16
 (23) Slippery Slope
Another popularly known fallacy, this is actually an offshoot of the false cause fallacy. It
occurs when an arguer claims one event must lead to a successive chain of less desirable
consequences -without offering any other proof.

Example: "If we vote for Clinton, a known pot smoker, soon the whole Whitehouse will be
filled with drug addicts."

"Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that
we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,
and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these
terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that
would be a terrible mistake for us."

- Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking about the choice Americans would
soon make in the presidential election at a Des Moines, Iowa campaign
appearance on September 7, 2004

(24) Division

Definition

The fallacy of division is the attempt to argue that constituents of a whole have the same
properties as the whole.

Examples

"Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."

Explanation

The premise and the conclusion may both be true, but the premise does not prove the
conclusion without further evidence.

See Also

The converse is the fallacy of Composition

(25) False Dilemma

Definition: A false dilemma is a logical fallacy in which a person presenting an argument

gives two choices to pick from. In reality, however, there exist many more choices than the
two presented.

Fallacy Structure: Person A asks you to choose between choices X and Y where X and Y
exist in a much larger set.

Example: You either love God or you hate God. Which one is it?
17
Example: You can follow the word of Christ, or you can follow the word of Satan. Which
one will you choose?

Example: Should the Bible be taken literally or metaphorically?

Example: Should you follow science or religion?

(26) Gambler's Fallacy

Definition

The gambler's fallacy is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour or occurences
are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process or event, then these
deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations or events in the future.

Examples

"The last four coin tosses were heads, therefor the next toss has a higher likelyhood of
being tails."

Explanation

The coin toss is the best example of this fallacy. A fair coin has a 50% chance of landing
heads up as tails up when tossed. Each toss is unaffected by previous tosses. The chances
remain 50/50 for every toss.

(27) Genetic Fallacy

Definition

The genetic fallacy is committed when an claim is either accepted or rejected because of its
source, rather than its merit.

Examples

Eugenics was pioneered in Germany during the war. Therefore eugenics is a bad
thing.

Explanation

Saying that something should not be used now because it had bad connotations in the past is
not a sound argument.

18
 (28) Guilt By Association

Fallacy, Hasty Generalization, Honor By Association

An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or

redherring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely
by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association
and honor by association.

Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal
toemotion.

The most common objective in employing a Guilt By Association fallacy is as a distraction to

avoid discussing the actual issue, instead choosing to marginalize the topic and dismiss
detailed inquiry as unnecessary.

A very popular type of Guilt By Association is the infamous Godwin argument. Hitler, being
the most famous strawman icon to compare people to, makes an ideal often-irrelevant
analogy to compare something with in order to dismiss the issue or person entirely.

(29) Hasty Generalization

Definition

This fallacy is committed when someone draws a conclusion about a group based on a
sample that is not large enough to truly represent that group. ( terburu-buru mengambil
kesimpulan)

Examples

Cats love water. My cat loves to swim in our pool.

Explanation

This is known as "leaping to a conclusion" when too few facts are known. It is often
commited because of bias, prejudice or shear laziness.

(30) Ignoring A Common Cause

Definition

This fallacy is committed when someone argues that A caused B, when in fact C causes both
A and B.

19
Examples

A doctor may conclude that a build up of bacteria is the cause of a patient's illness
when in fact a virus has compromised the patient's immune system causing the
patient's illness and the build up of bacteria.

(31) Middle Ground

Definition

This fallacy is committed when someone argues that the middle ground must be correct
because it is in the middle of two extremes.

Examples

From Nizkor: A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His
neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new
shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new
shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he
wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise
between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars.

(32) Misleading Vividness

Definition

This fallacy is committed when someone explains something in vivid detail to try to make it
appear more important than it really is.

Examples

"This vicious hate language that ruins the ears of our children should be made illegal!"

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Smith committed this crime. He brutally murdered
and raped this poor innocent honor student in this heinous act."

Explanation

The first example doesn't acknowledge the First Amendment, which protects free speech no
matter how offensive it may be.

The second example assumes that the defendant is guilty. Both the premise and conclusion
may be true, but the detailed language proves nothing about the guilt or innocence of Mr.
Smith.

20
 (33) Poisoning the Well

Definition

This fallacy is committed when someone presents information about someone with the
explicit intention of tainting other people's view of that person before meeting him/her. ( teori
fitnah untuk mencari sesuatu)

Examples

The professor you will see in the debate tonight in defence of gay marriage is a Nazi
sympathiser.

(34) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc also known as a causal fallacy or a false cause fallacy is a
logical fallacy in which one argues that because one event happened after another event, the
event that happened first caused the second event.

This is illustrated thus:

1. A happened before B.
2. Therefore, A is the cause of B.

The fallacious nature of this argument is illustrated with this absurd example:

1. After I coughed, my microwave exploded.

2. Therefore, my coughing caused my microwave to explode.

The phrase itself is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this".

(35) Questionable Cause

Definition

This fallacy is committed when someone claims that A causes B simply because A and B are
always found togther.

Examples

Stale bread always has mold, therefor mold causes bread to go stale.

(36) Red Herring

The term red herring refers to any argument designed to change the topic. Red herrings are
usually employed when one is on the edge of defeat in a debate. Such arguments are
considered to be logically fallacious. ( mengubah topic ) ciri-ciri orang : terpojok saat debat,
argumen lemah, ada yang disembunyikan )

21
 (37) Relativist Fallacy

Definition

This fallacy is committed when someone asserts that a truth is relative to someone or
something and can therefore be rejected.

Examples

"what is true for you is not necessarily true for me"

Also Known As

Subjectivist Fallacy

(38) Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a very commonly employed logical fallacy that implies that if a
particular action is taken, a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences will follow.

This fallacy is also known as the "camel's nose fallacy". There is an old saying about how if
you allow a camel to poke its nose into the tent, soon the whole camel will follow.

The fallacy here is the assumption that something is wrong because it is right next to
something that is wrong. Or, it is wrong because it could slide towards something that is
wrong.

The problem is that there is often no specific causal relationship between these items.

Examples:

If we allow cannabis to be decriminalized, they'll be legalizing heroin next!

"Allowing abortion in the first week of pregnancy would lead to allowing it in the
ninth month."

"If I make an exception for you then I'll have to make an exception for everyone."

(39) Special Pleading

Also known as a "double standard", the Special Pleading logical fallacy involves referencing
a rule or process, then suspending the rule when it doesn't suit your purpose.

The common theist Argument From Design claims that all designs need a designer. If you see
a watch, you supposedly know there is a creator. If you ask a theist "Who created God then?"
Their response is a Special Pleading. They exempt their own rules and suggest that God does
not need a creator. ( memiliki sisi yang baik tapi didampingi itu memiliki sisi kejam )

22
 (40) Spotlight

Definition

This fallacy is committed when assuming that stereotypes are representative of a type.

Examples

Atheists are arrogant and condescending.

Also Known As

Biased sample

(41) Straw Man

Also known as: Fallacy of Extension, straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, wooden
dummy argument, single-villain ideology

A Straw Man is a classic logical fallacy where a person manufactures a caricature (usually a
misinterpretation or oversimplification) of his opponent's argument, and then sets out to
attack or dismiss the exaggeration. i.e. Building a straw man and then knocking it down. This
is a very dishonest line of argument, since a person puts words into his opponent's mouth then
ridicules them.

Straw man is a fallacy that occurs when someone attacks a less defensible position than the
one actually being put forth. This occurs very often in politics, when one seeks to derive
maximum approval for himself/herself or for a cause. Example: "Opposition to the North
American Free Trade Agreement amounts to nothing but opposition to free trade."
(Someone can believe in free and open trade and yet still oppose NAFTA.)

Straw Man oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.

In this example the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In
reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to
support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the
opposition with respect or refuting their position.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training,
a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.

The most prevalent use of strawmen argumentation today involves sweeping generalizations
and labeling people as being part of pre-demonized ethnic, cultural or social groups: liberals,
illegal immigrants, "Socialists", blacks, Jews, etc.

23
Straw Man examples

"I believe it requires more "faith" to accept a theory that says our amazingly
precise, intricately complex universe just exploded into being out of nothingness"

The strawman here is that creation and all life "just exploded", or "happened by
chance" (perhaps the most common Straw Man example employed by theists). This is
of course, a complete mischaracterization of evolution, quantum theory, astrophysics,
biology and everything in between. The writer suggests that one possible explanation
for life, is that it "just happened". This is the weakest and most shallow answer
possible, and is not any idea that a learned scientist in an appropriate field would
endorse, yet the person uses this horrible example as a standard by which his
opponent's claims should be judged. If he can find a fault in this "straw man" he's
created, or if he can get his opponent to suggest, "Yes, it's unlikely things 'just
exploded out of nothingness'" then he will declare that he's won the argument.

After the 9/11 attack President Bush asserted that If youre not with us, youre
against us.

Strawman arguments often paint the world in black and white, also known as a
False Dichotomy, as if there is only right and wrong and nothing in between. Pick a
position that is politically-correct and if you don't align with it, then by default you
must somehow be the exact opposite.

Liberals want America to fail in the Middle East.

An otherwise ridiculously ignorant claim can be almost suggested as legitimate if you

incorporate a strawman group like "liberals" into the equation. It's not-specific but has
been previously defined as some sort of "evil" or "unpleasant" ambiguous group of
enemies on which various things can be blamed. Since there is no particular "leader"
of the "liberals", there's nobody motivated to defend such ignorant statements and
pundits in the media declare by lieu of no argument, their statements are truthful.

Strawmen in the media BY DESIGN

Strawman Pundits

An interesting technique that is appearing in mainstream media and specifically news

shows like CNN and Fox are "Strawmen commentators" where a very powerful
speaker represents one side of an issue, while a weaker ideologue represents the other,
(i.e. Hannity & Colmes -- the aggressive overbearing Sean Hannity makes the so-
called liberal Alan Colmes appear to be ineffective). Roundtable discussions on
networks like CNN routinely feature very skilled debaters on one side, and amateurs
or extremists on the other. How often do you see the voice of reason illustrated on

24
 roundtable discussions such as Crossfire? You usually see the network's point of
view, along with some extremist nutjob, or demonized attention whore as the
representative icon of the other side.

Strawman Topics

Certain issues seem to lend themselves to strawmen arguments. For example, when
advocating tort reform, frivolous lawsuits such as a woman who sued McDonalds and
got $3M for being served hot coffee - this suit is held as an example of wasteful
lawsuits, as if most lawsuits are of this nature. Furthermore, of course, the
characterization of the actual lawsuit in the media is often grossly inaccurate. These
types of cases make for perfect straw man arguments (assuming people do not do their
own investigating to realize the networks are lying).

Colon Powell scares congress into condoning the Iraq invasion by holding up a fake vial of
antrax. Pay attention to my strawman, people! This two-bit Arabian dictator is the biggest
threat evah to America! BOOGA BOOGA!

Strawman Demons

A very effective way of employing a strawman argument is through Ad Hominem

sweeping generalization, which is the setup for the Guilt by association fallacy. If the
news media runs a story on the thousand plus people who protested the World Trade
Organization meeting in Seattle, and shows a videotape of a stoned college student
banging a drum and dancing, they create a strawman implying that anyone protesting
the WTO is a wasted hippy. Furthermore the strawman notion of a "tree hugger" has
become synonymous with environmentalists, even though a typical person who cares
about global warming isn't likely to chain themselves to a tree in protest.

Strawman Advertising

Invoking strawmen is a staple in the advertising business, from implying that drinking
the right beer will give you wonderful friends and good times, to driving the right car
making you more manly, patriotic, or a babe magnet.

Fearmongering

Scaring people is a basic component of strawman arguing. A political candidate who

suggests that the country would be less safe if his opponent were elected is creating a
strawman using fear to motivate people to vote a certain way.
The entire Iraq invasion was perpetrated through an elaborate strawman concocted via
the Bush administration's attempt to paint Saddam Hussein as a threat to America.

25
Variations on Strawman

A strawman argument is a type of Red Herring, a distraction, often designed to divert

attention away from qualifying the real issue. It's often used as an Ad Hominem to dismiss a
person's arguments prior to consideration:

What do you expect from someone who used to be friends with Louis Farrakhan? I
wouldn't trust a word he says.

Guilt by association is a classic variation on the strawman argument.

Famous Real Strawmen

Virtually any historical figure of importance has a slightly distorted reputation, but some
more than others have become much larger than their real life's work warrants and have
become symbolic strawmen often invoked to shut down an argument:

Adolf Hitler - The quite essential strawman. To invoke his name in an argument is to
immediately kill off any intelligent discourse. Whatever extent to which Hitler was
universally immoral or "evil", pales in comparison to his value as a metaphor for
anything and everything anyone who is decent should stand against.

Michael Moore - His work has been so heavily demonized, he is largely considered
to be a propagandist on par with other historical figures who really did go out of their
way to distort facts and figures. Nonetheless, a careful analysis of Moore's work and
his statements will show a consistent attempt to show the truth and back up claims
with facts and sources that are non-biased.

Hillary Clinton - This woman was a GOP demon all through the 1990s for reasons
nobody can seem to understand. Her husband may have committed adultery, but her
reputation seems to have suffered the most. Now Hillary is synonymous with lesbians
and socialism.

Ronald Reagan - This is a great example of a false-positive strawman. Ronald

Reagan is greatly revered in conservative circles for being a "great president" and
having a sound economic and social policy, but in reality, his record is anything of the
sort. Invoking Reagan's name has become a sort of sacred pilgrimage for republicans,
and likely because he is now deceased, it is considered taboo to speak critically of him
or his policy. A perfect strawman.

United Nations - In many circles, most notably the American media, the U.N. has
become a metaphor for the potential loss of American autonomy and power.
Characterized on CNN and Fox News as an ineffective, bumbling, racist, corrupt
organization run by evil foreign leaders intent on destroying America, very little
mention is made of the fact that the United States has more control and influence in
the U.N. than any other nation, picks-and-chooses whether to pay attention to them,
and the media largely ignores the plethora of valuable, life-saving programs the U.N.

26
 is involved in. Instead, the reference is often invoked to scare and provoke people into
backing the contention that the United States should not pay attention to any other
world leaders with whom they disagree.

(42) Two Wrongs Make A Right

This is also known as the "But Clinton..." fallacy.

The idea is, if you can show someone else perpetrated the same transgression, this is
supposed to excuse it.

This fallacy works even more in association with a strawman to associate two dramatically
different levels of the same transgressions (lying for example) as being equal in repercussions
when they are not.

Hey, Bush lied to the American people about getting us into war with Iraq, But Bill
Clinton also lied and he got impeached!

If A does X, then it's not X, if B does X to A.

If a thief steals , it's not stealing if you take it from the thief because it was already stolen.

This fallacy is also similar to a False Equivalence.

( teori menang sendiri )

Argumented Ad ignoration

Because we dont know something is true than most people Because we dont know something
is false than true

One Sided assasment

27