FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Array
Logical fallacies/Page 1: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
*'''Rebuttal''': Some truths may be unpleasant, but do not cease to be true simply because the consequences of their truth are not desired. (e.g. Just because it would destroy everything if I own if my house burned down, it does not therefore follow that my house is not on fire.) | *'''Rebuttal''': Some truths may be unpleasant, but do not cease to be true simply because the consequences of their truth are not desired. (e.g. Just because it would destroy everything if I own if my house burned down, it does not therefore follow that my house is not on fire.) | ||
*'''See also:''' | *'''See also:''' | ||
** [ | ** [[Appeal_to_fear_.28also_called_argumentum_ad_metum_or_argumentum_in_terrorem.29 | appeal to fear]] | ||
** [[#Wishful_thinking | Wishful Thinking]] | ** [[#Wishful_thinking | Wishful Thinking]] | ||
** [ | ** [[#ad_hominem_circumstantial_.28also_called_ad_hominem_circumstantiae.29 | argumentum ad hominem]] | ||
== Appeal to emotion == | == Appeal to emotion == | ||
''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ | ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion Wikipedia entry]'' | ||
These fallcies appeal to the emotion, rather than the reason, of the audience. | |||
=== Appeal to fear (also called ''argumentum ad metum'' or ''argumentum in terrorem'')=== | === Appeal to fear (also called ''argumentum ad metum'' or ''argumentum in terrorem'')=== | ||
''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ | ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear Wikipedia entry]'' | ||
This fallcy plays on the fears or biases of the audience. | |||
*'''Argument''': | *'''Argument''': Mormons will not be saved, they do not accept my conception of Jesus. | ||
*'''Rebuttal''': | *'''Rebuttal''': Of not being saved should not press us to accept someone's conception of Jesus unless that conception strikes us as truthful emotionally, logically, and spiritually. | ||
*'''See also:''' | *'''See also:''' | ||
** XXXXX | ** XXXXX | ||
=== Appeal to flattery === | === Appeal to flattery === | ||
''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ | ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_flattery Wikipedia entry]'' | ||
*'''Argument''': | This approach appeals the audience's vanity. | ||
*'''Rebuttal''': | *'''Argument''': "Only those who are intellectually and emotionally honest can 'face the truth' about Mormonism." (And, by implication, if one disagrees with the speaker's version of truth, one is not emotionally or intellectually honest.) | ||
*'''Rebuttal''': The acceptance of the speaker's position is the point at issue. If their position is false, then it is neither intellectually or emotionally honest to agree with them. This is often a form of [[#Begging_the_question_.28also_called_petitio_principii.2C_circular_argument_or_circular_reasoning.29 |begging the question]]. | |||
*'''See also:''' | *'''See also:''' | ||
** | ** [[#Ad_hominem_.28also_called_argumentum_ad_hominem_or_personal_attack.29 | ad hominem]] | ||
=== Appeal to the majority (also called ''argumentum ad populum'') === | === Appeal to the majority (also called ''argumentum ad populum'') === | ||
| Line 116: | Line 117: | ||
=== Appeal to pity (also called ''argumentum ad misericordiam'') === | === Appeal to pity (also called ''argumentum ad misericordiam'') === | ||
''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ | ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity Wikipedia entry]'' | ||
This tactic plays on the audience's sympathies. | |||
*'''Argument''': | *'''Argument''': "We can't reject Joseph Smith's claims, because the pioneers suffered so much for it." | ||
*'''Rebuttal''': | *'''Rebuttal''': People can suffer for a false cause; the energy and effort dedicated to something is not evidence for its truthfulness. | ||
*'''See also:''' | *'''See also:''' | ||
** XXXXX | ** XXXXX | ||
| Line 126: | Line 129: | ||
''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LINK Wikipedia entry]'' | ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LINK Wikipedia entry]'' | ||
*'''Argument''': | This tactic (mis)states an opponent's beliefs in a way that distorts them, and makes them appear ridiculous. The audience will then conclude that something so foolish cannot be defended. | ||
*'''Rebuttal''': | |||
This is a favorite tactic of the anti-Mormon industry; their characterizations of LDS belief and doctrine are seldom complete. | |||
*'''Argument''': | |||
** "Mormons believe they will be gods and rule their own planets." | |||
** "Mormons think God talks to farmboys." | |||
** "[Y]ou don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles; it is just that simple." - Sterling M. McMurrin, "An Interview with Sterling M. McMurrin," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 17 (Spring 1984): 18-43. | |||
** The golden plates were conveniently taken back by the angel so no one could have the trouble to examine them!" | |||
*'''Rebuttal''': To understand a belief or argument, it is always best to let a believer or proponent of an argument explain it. Any belief or idea can be made to appear ridiculous with loaded language or misleading characterizations—this is especially true of an idea that is new to an audience. | |||
*'''See also:''' | *'''See also:''' | ||
** | **[[Straw_man]] | ||
**[[The God Makers]] | |||
=== Appeal to spite (also called ''argumentum ad odium'') === | === Appeal to spite (also called ''argumentum ad odium'') === | ||
| Line 813: | Line 826: | ||
*'''Rebuttal''': XXXXX | *'''Rebuttal''': XXXXX | ||
*'''See also:''' | *'''See also:''' | ||
** | ** [[Appeal_to_ridicule]] | ||
== Style over substance fallacy == | == Style over substance fallacy == | ||
Revision as of 04:08, 29 September 2005
This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.
Ad hominem (also called argumentum ad hominem or personal attack)
This fallacy attacks the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.
It is important to note that there is at least one case when an attack upon the speaker is not fallacious, but actually appropriate. If a witness is making a statement about certain facts or events, and if the witness can be shown to be unreliable (e.g. he has lied about other issues) then this is a legitimate attack. One cannot challenge a person's logical argument on these grounds, but one can challenge the evidence which they themselves present.
- Fallacious: E.D. Howe ought to be ignored because he was a drinker.
- Proper: E.D. Howe has been shown to have lied about what Joseph wrote in example #1, #2, and #3. Why should we then believe Howe when he tells us what he personally observed, since he has been willing to lie in order to discredit Joseph?
ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam)
- Argument: This fallacy is one of the most commonly used, and has been used since the earliest days of the Church to discredit Joseph Smith. Joseph was often the target of such efforts; many of the early anti-Mormon "affidavits" against Joseph and his family (charging them with laziness, corruption, 'money-digging', immoral life, and the like) were designed to attack the messengers because the message was unpalatable.
- Rebuttal: Brigham Young encountered such tactics frequently, and his response is appropriate:
- I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I ws personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on, brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.
- —Brigham Young, "The Gospel Like a Net Cast Into the Sea, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 9 November 1856, Vol. 4 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1857), 77–78.
ad hominem circumstantial (also called ad hominem circumstantiae)
- Argument: This fallacy argues that a person makes an argument because of his circumstances. "Well, of course a Mormon would make that argument, since they can't bear to admit their faith might be wrong." Appeals to cognitive dissonance as a non-explanation often fall into this category.
- Rebuttal: A person may well have many motivations for making an argument. However, one must confront the argument itself. Critics attempt to use this tactic to dismiss anything a member of the Church has to say about a topic. With members excluded, only non-Mormon (or anti-Mormon) authors have any 'credibility.' Note too that the same fallacious argument can be turned back on any critic—the critic is not a member, and so may have a vested interested in disproving a religion that makes uncompromising truth claims, calls on them to repent, etc. Thus, the argument is impotent in any case, since it can be applied with equal force to both sides.
ad hominem tu quoque (also called you too argument)
- Argument: This fallacy argues that "because you are guilty of the same thing of which you are accusing me, your accusation is meritless.
A common example is for critics to respond to charges that they have used dishonest or inaccurate footnotes by pointing out that some of Hugh Nibley's footnotes were inaccurate.
- Rebuttal: One might be a hypocrite for criticizing someone for something of which one is guilty, but this does not make the claim any less true. If one murderer tells another murderer he is a killer, this does not make the claim untrue. Nibley's footnotes being inaccurate are irrelevent to the question of whether the critic has used misleading footnotes. Even if every Nibley footnote is wrong, this does not excuse the critic from his own mistakes. (Note that an attack on Nibley's footnotes might be appropriate if the apologist was citing an inaccurate Nibley footnote as evidence for a position.)
- See also:
Amphibology (also called amphiboly)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Appeal to authority (also called argumentum ad verecundiam or argument by authority)
This fallacy relies on a report of what someone (e.g. a scholar) or something (e.g. a sacred text like the Bible) says about a topic, rather than considering the evidence (if any) upon which such opinions may be based.
- Argument: The Smithsonian insitute says that the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with ancient America. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is not an ancient work.
- Rebuttal: While the Smithsonian doubtless has experts on the subject of ancient America, it is not necessarily clear that those experts have taken the Book of Mormon and its evidences seriously. A much more persuasive argument would be for a Smithsonian expert to examine the evidence advanced by Book of Mormon proponents, and explain why it does or does not integrate with what is known about ancient America.
Especially in highly technical fields, a referral to what authorities think about a topic may be a good gauge of what the evidence currently tells us; however, in case of disagreement it is much better to consider the primary evidence itself.
- See also:
Variations on this fallacy
- The authority cited is not an expert in this field - e.g. A Biblical scholar might be very knowledgeable in his own field, but know relatively little about the Book of Mormon.
- An authority is miscited or misunderstood - e.g. LDS prophets are experts on LDS doctrine, but the critic may have misrepresented their position. See Selective or Distorted Quotation
- The extent of the authority is not appreciated - e.g. LDS prophets are experts, but they are not considered infallible. Their statements are not doctrinally binding unless ratified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. See General Authorities' Statements as Scripture
- The authority may be biased - e.g. an atheist may be predisposed to disregard any evidence which would suggest that Joseph Smith saw God. Likewise, a Mormon might be predisposed to overlook evidence which questioned Joseph's truthfulness.
- The authority might not represent his field - e.g. Citing a general authority who was later disciplined or excommunicated is not an honest way to reflect the 'consensus' of LDS belief.
Appeal to belief
In apologetics, this might also be called the appeal to unbelief. It asserts that something must be true simply because most people (including, perhaps, the reader) believes it.
- Argument: "Everyone knows God doesn't speak to man"; "all Christians accept that the Bible canon is closed"; "everyone knows religious people are deluded."
- Rebuttal: History is full of ideas which were once believed by nearly everyone (e.g. the sun orbits the earth, bleeding the sick with leeches will help them get better) and which are now known to be false.
- See also:
- Appeal to authority - the 'authoirty' in this case is 'public opinion' or 'everyone'
- Cognitive dissonance
Appeal to consequences (also called argumentum ad consequentiam)
This fallacy argues that because of the negative consequences of accepting a premise, the premise must therefore be false.
- Argument: "Being a member of the Mormon Church caused negative consequence X in my life. Therefore, I should not have been a member, and the Church is false."
- Rebuttal: Some truths may be unpleasant, but do not cease to be true simply because the consequences of their truth are not desired. (e.g. Just because it would destroy everything if I own if my house burned down, it does not therefore follow that my house is not on fire.)
- See also:
Appeal to emotion
These fallcies appeal to the emotion, rather than the reason, of the audience.
Appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem)
This fallcy plays on the fears or biases of the audience.
- Argument: Mormons will not be saved, they do not accept my conception of Jesus.
- Rebuttal: Of not being saved should not press us to accept someone's conception of Jesus unless that conception strikes us as truthful emotionally, logically, and spiritually.
- See also:
- XXXXX
Appeal to flattery
This approach appeals the audience's vanity.
- Argument: "Only those who are intellectually and emotionally honest can 'face the truth' about Mormonism." (And, by implication, if one disagrees with the speaker's version of truth, one is not emotionally or intellectually honest.)
- Rebuttal: The acceptance of the speaker's position is the point at issue. If their position is false, then it is neither intellectually or emotionally honest to agree with them. This is often a form of begging the question.
- See also:
Appeal to the majority (also called argumentum ad populum)
See Appeal to belief
Appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam)
This tactic plays on the audience's sympathies.
- Argument: "We can't reject Joseph Smith's claims, because the pioneers suffered so much for it."
- Rebuttal: People can suffer for a false cause; the energy and effort dedicated to something is not evidence for its truthfulness.
- See also:
- XXXXX
Appeal to ridicule
This tactic (mis)states an opponent's beliefs in a way that distorts them, and makes them appear ridiculous. The audience will then conclude that something so foolish cannot be defended.
This is a favorite tactic of the anti-Mormon industry; their characterizations of LDS belief and doctrine are seldom complete.
- Argument:
** "Mormons believe they will be gods and rule their own planets." ** "Mormons think God talks to farmboys." ** "[Y]ou don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles; it is just that simple." - Sterling M. McMurrin, "An Interview with Sterling M. McMurrin," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17 (Spring 1984): 18-43. ** The golden plates were conveniently taken back by the angel so no one could have the trouble to examine them!"
- Rebuttal: To understand a belief or argument, it is always best to let a believer or proponent of an argument explain it. Any belief or idea can be made to appear ridiculous with loaded language or misleading characterizations—this is especially true of an idea that is new to an audience.
- See also:
Appeal to spite (also called argumentum ad odium)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Two wrongs make a right
- Argument: The LDS committed some (real or imagined) wrong, therefore a dishonest or inappropriate tactic on the critics' part is held to be not serious. Critics who believe that the Church is a Satanic organization, or a brand of false religion often accept the rationale that "the end justifies the means" or that "lying for Jesus" is acceptable.
- Rebuttal: Whatever the Mormons' faults or errors, dishonest debating or polemnics do not help in the search for truth. They also ill-become those who claim to be Christians.
Wishful thinking
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Appeal to motive
This fallacy seeks to discredit an opponent by questioning his/her motives. Sometimes it is merely suggested that motive is possible without demonstrating its reality.
- Argument: "Apologists aren't worth listening to, because they are Mormons."; "Brigham Young's opinion on Joseph Smith's character cannot be trusted, because Brigham was an apostle and utterly committed to Mormonism."
- Rebuttal: The quality of an argument does not depend on who makes it.
Note that any argument along these lines used against a member of the Church can also be used against any critic of the Church, who may have motives for disagreeing with the Church that have a religious or personal basis. This is why only the facts should be considered.
- See also:
Appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Appeal to probability
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Appeal to tradition (also called argumentum ad antiquitatem or appeal to common practice)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Argument from fallacy (also called argumentum ad logicam)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Argument from ignorance (also called argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Argument from silence (also called argumentum ex silentio)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Argumentum ad baculum (also called appeal to force)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Argumentum ad crumenam (also called appeal to wealth)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
== Argumentum ad lazarum (also called appeal to poverty) ==Wikipedia entry
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Argumentum ad nauseam (also called argument from repetition)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Argumentum ad numerum
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Base rate fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Bandwagon fallacy (also called appeal to popularity, appeal to the people, or argumentum ad populum)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Begging the question (also called petitio principii, circular argument or circular reasoning)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Cartesian fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Conjunction fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Correlative based fallacies
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Fallacy of many questions (also called complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question or plurium interrogationum)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
False dilemma (also called false dichotomy or bifurcation)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Denying the correlative
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Suppressed correlative
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Dicto simpliciter
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Accident (also called a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Converse accident (also called a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Equivocation
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
False analogy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
False premise
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
False compromise
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Fallacies of distribution:
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Composition
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Statistical special pleading
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Gambler's fallacy/Inverse gambler's fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Genetic fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Guilt by association
- See also:
Historian's fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Homunculus fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Ideology over reality
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
If-by-whiskey (argues both sides)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Judgemental language
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Ignoratio elenchi (also called irrelevant conclusion)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Inappropriate interpretations or applications of statistics
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Biased sample
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Correlation implies causation
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Gambler's fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Prosecutor's fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Screening test fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Intentional fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Invalid proof
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Lump of labour fallacy (also called the fallacy of labour scarcity)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Meaningless statement
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Middle ground (also called argumentum ad temperantiam)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Misleading vividness
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Naturalistic fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Negative proof
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Non sequitur
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Affirming the consequent
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Denying the antecedent
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
No true Scotsman
Some enemies of the Church define 'Christian' in such a way as to exclude the LDS.
- Argument: Latter-day Saints are not Christian because they do not believe in the Trinity.
- Rebuttal: "Christians" are not defined as those who accept the Trinity, but rather as those who accept Jesus as Son of God and Savior. Since LDS do accept this, they are "Christians," just not "Trinitarian Christians." In other words, "Trinitarian" does not equal "Christian."
- See also:
Package deal fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Pathetic fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Perfect solution fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Poisoning the well
This fallacy attempts to discredit a person before their arguments are even heard.
- Argument: Nothing that anyone who publishes with FAIR or FARMS can be believed, because they are "apologists," and so inherently untrustworthy.
- Rebuttal: An "apologist" may have a very good argument or a very bad one. One is only intellectually honest if he/she is willing to consider the argument on its own merits regardless of who raised it. This tactic is used to avoid confronting arguments with which the critic does not wish to deal. All authors have biases; "apologists" are at least up front about theirs, while critics try to play the role of disinterested 'seekers of truth,' though they are as much "apologists" for their own position.
- See also:
Proof by verbosity
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Questionable cause (also called non causa pro causa)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Correlation implies causation (also called cum hoc ergo propter hoc)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Fallacy of the single cause
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Joint effect
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Post hoc (also called post hoc ergo propter hoc)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Regression fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Texas sharpshooter fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Wrong direction
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Red herring (also called irrelevant conclusion)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Reification (also called hypostatization)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Relativist fallacy (also called subjectivist fallacy)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Shifting the Burden of proof
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Slippery slope
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Special pleading
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Straw man
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
Style over substance fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Syllogistic fallacies
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Affirming a disjunct
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Existential fallacy
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Fallacy of exclusive premises
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Fallacy of four terms (also called quaternio terminorum)
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Fallacy of the undistributed middle
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Illicit major
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX
Illicit minor
- Argument: XXXX
- Rebuttal: XXXXX
- See also:
- XXXXX