147 Logical Fallacies: A Master List of Examples (2023)

made possible byOwen M. Wilson, University of Texas El Paso

A logical fallacy is an irrational argument based on a fallacy common enough to be named for the nature of the logical fallacy in question.

Argued a priori

Also: rationalization; Dogmatism, SMS evidence

A corrupt Logos argument, Start with a specific given belief, dogma, doctrine, scripture, "fact," or conclusion, and then look for a reasonable or reasonable-sounding argument to rationalize, defend, or justify it. Certain ideologues and religious fundamentalists pride themselves on using this fallacy as their primary "method of argument," and some are even honest enough to say so.

Example: Knowing that there is no such thing as "evolution," one of the most important tasks of believers is to look for ways to deal with mounting evidence, such as that found in DNA, that might point to something else.

The opposite of this misunderstanding is the taboo.

See also The argument from ignorance.

See alsoA comprehensive list of 180 cognitive biases and heuristics

drain

Also: The Deceiver's Fallacy; The Fallacy of the Dacoit; shearing sheep; take advantage; "Vulture capitalism", "Wealth is a disease and I am the cure."

A corrupt ethos argument that because someone is intellectually slower, less physically or emotionally able, less ambitious, less aggressive, older, or less sane (or simply more trusting or less fortunate) than others, someone "inherently" deserves less life and are free to fall prey to those who are happier, faster, younger, stronger, healthier, greedier, more powerful, less moral, or more gifted (or who simply have a more immediate need for money, often of a specific form). of addiction). This error is a "softer" argument ad baculum. When challenged, those who practice this misconception seem to most commonly shrug and murmur, "Life sucks and you must be a sucker [sic]", "You have to do what you have to do to get ahead in this world", "I'm not embarrassed", "This is free enterprise", "That's life!" or something like that.

Actions have consequences

The contemporary fallacy that a ruler misrepresents an inflicted penalty or punishment as a "consequence" of another's negative action.

Example: The consequences of your misconduct could be a suspension or expulsion.'

A corrupt argument of ethos that appropriates to itself or its own rules or laws an ethos of cosmic inevitability, i. H. the ethos of God, destiny, karma, destiny, or reality. Illness or food poisoning are likely the "consequences" of eating spoiled food, while "house arrest" is one of thempenalty for, not a “consequence” of childhood misconduct. Freezing to death is a natural "consequence" of being naked in frigid weather, but jail time is one of thempunishmentfor bank robberies, there is no natural, unavoidable, or unavoidable "consequence" of a bank robbery. Not to be confused with Argument from Consequences, which is entirely different.

An opposite misconception is moral licensing.

See also Blaming the Victim.

To the arguments of man

Also: "Personal Attack", "Poisoning of the Well"

The fallacy of refuting an argument by attacking the opponent's intelligence, morals, education, professional qualifications, personal character, or reputation using a corrupt negative argument derived from ethos. E.g. "The so-called judge"; or "He's so bad you can't believe anything he says." Another facet of Ad Hominem is the token endorsement fallacy, in which, in the words of scholar Lara Bhasin, "Person A was accused of anti-Semitism However, Person B is Jewish and says Person A is not anti-Semitic, and the implication.” The bottom line, of course, is that we can believe Individual B because, as a Jew, he has particular knowledge of anti-Semitism. Or a presidential candidate is accused of anti-Muslim bigotry, but someone finds the testimony of a Muslim who voted for that candidate and presents it as evidence against the candidate's bigotry.” The same misconception would apply offensively to a sports team. is named after a marginalized ethnic group, but has received the support (given or paid) of a member, traditional leader, or tribal council of the marginalized group, magically rendering the otherwise offensive team name and logo to "okay" and not racist.

The opposite of this is the "Star Power" fallacy.

See also “Goudstad Association”.

See also16 characteristics of a critical thinking classroom

The affective fallacy

Also: The Romantic Fallacy; emotions over reflection; 'Follow your heart'

A very common modern misconception of pathos holds that a person's emotions, drives or "feelings" are innate and in any case self-affirming, autonomous and above any human intention or volition (either one's own or another's) and are therefore immune. challenge or criticize. (Actually,Researchers now [2017] have robust scientific evidence that emotions are indeed cognitive and not innate.) In this fallacy one reasons: "I feel it, so it must be true." My feelings are valid, so you have no right to criticize what I say or do or how I say or do it. prejudice, bigotry, sexism, homophobia or hostility. A grossly sexist form of the affective fallacy is the well-known gross fallacy that the phallus "has no conscience" (also "A man must do what a man must do," "think with the other head"), i. H. since (male) sexuality is self-affirming and beyond voluntary control, what one does with it cannot be controlled either, and such acts cannot be criticized, a claim eagerly embraced and embraced in certain reifications of “desire” in contemporary times extended beyond the male gender. academic theory.

See also Playing with Emotions. The opposite of this misconception isSelected error of feeling(Thanks to researcher Marc Lawson for identifying this fallacy), falsely claiming that one's autonomic affective response at the "gut level" could be fully, or at least reliably, voluntarily controlled in advance. Closely related, if not identical, to the latter is the old misconception ofangelism,Falsely claiming to be capable of "objective" thought and judgment without emotion, invoking a vision of Olympian "selfless objectivity," or professing to transcend any personal feelings, temptations, or prejudices.

See also humiliation.

alphabet soup

A corrupt, modern, implicit misconception of ethos in which a person inappropriately uses acronyms, abbreviations, form numbers, and arcane insider "technical talk" primarily to prove to an audience that they "speak their language" and are "one of them” is to exclude, confuse, or impress outsiders. For example: "It's not uncommon for a K-12 with ASD to be both GT and LD." "I had a twenty minute DX-Q-so at 15 with a Zed-S1 and a couple of LU2s, though QR-Nancy 10 was above S9.” or “I hope I'll keep seeing my BAQ on my LES until I get my DD214.” See also attribution. This fallacy has recently become widespread in medical media advertising in the US, where "Alphabet Soup" is used to refer to groups of patients suffering from certain diseases or conditions, e.g. B. “If you have DPC with associated ZL, you can control your B2D with Lugluggena®. Ask your doctor about Lugluggena® Helium Tetracarbide Lozenges today to help control the symptoms of ZL and keep your B2D below the critical 7.62 threshold. Side effects of Lugluggena® can include K4 syndrome, which can lead to lycanthropic bicephaly, BMJ, and sometimes death. Do not take Lugluggena® if you are allergic to dog bites or type D Flinders garbose...”

alternate truth

Also: all the facts; counter-knowledge; Disinformation; information pollution

A recently famous contemporary Logos fallacy that has its roots in postmodernism and denies the resilience of facts or truth per se. Author Hannah Arendt, in herThe origins of totalitarianism(1951) warned: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the staunch Nazi or the staunch communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.” Journalist Leslie Grass (2017) writes on her blog Reachoutrecovery.com, "Is there anyone in your life who insists things happened that didn't happen or has a completely different version of events that you have the facts about?" It is form of mind control and is very common in families struggling with drug and behavior problems.” She suggests that such “alternative facts” help “unbalance,” “control history,” and "to give the impression of being insane", and points out that "the presentation of alternative facts is characteristic of unreliable people".

The fallacy of alternative truth is related to the big lie technique.

These include Gaslighting, Blind Loyalty, The Big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy, and Two Truths

The call for closure:

The current misconception that an argument, point of view, action, or conclusion, however questionable, must be accepted as final or the point will remain undecided, which is unthinkable because no "closure" is granted to those involved. This misunderstanding incorrectly reflects a technical term. (Conclusion) from Gestalt psychology while refusing to acknowledge the indisputable truth that some issues will indeed remain open and uncertain, perhaps forever. For example: "Society would be protected, real punishment would be meted out, crime would be deterred and justice would suffice if we sentenced you to life without parole, but we must execute you to ensure closure." See also Argument from ignorance and argument from consequences.

The opposite of this error is analysis paralysis.

The call to heaven

Also: Argumentum ad Coelum, Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, American Exceptionalism of the Special Covenant

An ancient, extremely dangerous fallacy (a misguided argument from ethos) of claiming to know the Spirit of God (or history or a higher power) who is said to have commanded or anointed one's country, position, or actions, endorsed or approved such that no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible. (E.g. “God commanded me to kill my children” or “We must take your land because God [or the Scriptures, or simply fate or destiny or heaven] gave it to us as our land.”) A A person who seriously alleges this misunderstanding risks ending up in a psychiatric hospital, but groups or nations that do so are all too often taken seriously. This heinous (and blasphemous) fallacy, practiced by those who cannot or will not distinguish God's will from their own, has been the cause of endless bloodshed throughout history. See also Moral Superiority and Magical Thinking. Also applies to misplaced negative cries to heaven, e.g. "They say famine and ecological collapse due to climate change pose real threats for the next century, but I know God would never allow that to happen to us!"

The opposite of the appeal to heaven is Job's error of consolation.

The appeal to nature

Also: biologization; The green misunderstanding

The contemporary romantic fallacy of the ethos (that of "Mother Nature") that what is "natural" must be good, wholesome, and beneficial. E.g. Our premium herbal teas are lovingly brewed from the finest freshly picked and carefully dried natural T. radicans leaves. Those who dismiss it as "poison ivy" don't understand that it's 100% organic, with no additives, GMOs, or artificial ingredients. It's time to go green and kick back in Mama's arms.” Anyone who practices this fallacy, or falls for it, is forgetting the old platitude that nature, left to itself, is indeed “red tooth and claw.” This fallacy also applies to arguments that claim something is "unnatural" or "unnatural" and therefore bad (The natural law argument), e.g. B. "Homosexuality should be banned because it goes against nature," giving itself the authority to determine what is "natural" and what is unnatural or perverse. For example, during the American Revolution, British sources condemned the rebellion against King George III. widely considered "unnatural" and American revolutionaries "perverted" because the divine right of kings represented natural right and, according to 1 Samuel 15:23 in the Bible, rebellion is like witchcraft.

The call to pity

Also: "Argument on Mercy"

The fallacy of encouraging an audience to "support the underdog" regardless of current issues. A classic example is: "The poor, cute guys are being devoured by mean, ugly cats ten times their size!" A contemporary example is America's uncritical popular support for the Arab Spring movement in 2010-2012, at which heroically overthrew the people ("The Outsiders") brutal dictatorships, a movement that has led to flashbacks of chaos, impoverishment, anarchy, mass suffering and civil war, the regional collapse of civilization and the rise of extremism, and the greatest refugee crisis since Second World War. A corrupt pathos argument. See also Playing with Emotions. The opposite of the pity appeal iscall austerity,an argument (often based on machismo or on manipulating an audience's fears) based on ruthlessness. For example, "I am a real man, not like the bleeding hearts, and I will stand firm against [insert name of enemy or ogre of the hour]." In academia, this final misconception applies to politically motivated or elitist claims after "academic rigor" and scolds university development/support courses, open admissions, "blunting" and "grade inflation".

The call to tradition

Also: conservative bias; Back in the Good Old Days, "The Good Old Days"

The age-old misconception that a point of view, situation, or action is right, appropriate, and correct simply because it "always has been," because people "always" thought that way, or because it was like that (usually in childhood or youth) of the audience, not before) and still serves a particular group very well. A corrupt argument of ethos (of previous generations). E.g. "In America, women have always been paid less, so we shouldn't mess with an old tradition." See also argument from inertia and default bias. The opposite of this misconception isThe call for novelty(also "Pro-Innovation Bias", "Recency Bias" and "The Bad Old Days"; the fallacy of the early adopter), e.g. "It's NEW and therefore needs to be improved!" or "This is the latest discovery - it has to be better."

reconciliation

Also: "Safety", "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"; "I know my rights!"

This misunderstanding, popularly associated with Hitler's embarrassing policy of appeasement before World War II, is still commonly practiced today in government agencies, education and retail, e.g. “Customers are always right, even when they are wrong. Don't argue with them, just give them what they want so they shut up and leave and don't stink - it's cheaper and easier than going to court." the development of a crude subculture of obnoxious, "assertive" manipulators who, like "spoiled" children, use their knowledge of how to figuratively (or sometimes even literally!) "make a stink" in a primary coping skill of getting what they want, when they want it. The work of the late community organizing guru Saul Alinsky suggests practical, nonviolent ways for groups to harness the power of this fallacy to drive social change, for better or for worse.

See also bribery.

The argument from consequences

Also: distortion of results

The biggest misconception of Logos is to claim that something cannot be true because if it were, the consequences or outcome would be unacceptable.

Example: Global climate change cannot be caused by humans burning fossil fuels, because if it were, switching to clean energy sources would bankrupt US industry, or “Doctor, that's not right!” I can't Have terminal cancer because if I did it would mean I wouldn't have long to live before my kids got married!'

Not to be confused with actions that have consequences.

The argument from ignorance

Also: Argument against ignorance

The fallacy is that a statement must be false or true because we don't know (or can never know or prove) whether it's true or false. For example: "Scientists will never be able to positively prove their crazy theory that humans evolved from other living beings because we weren't there to see it!" So it proves that the six-day creation account of the Genesis is literally true as it is written!” This misunderstanding includesAttack the evidence(also "Whataboutism"; The Missing Link fallacy), e.g. "Some or all of your most important references are missing, incomplete or even fake! What about it? It proves you're wrong and I'm right!' This error usually includes the erroneous "either/or" reasoning: e.g. "The vet can't find a reasonable explanation for my dog's death. To see! To see! That proves you poisoned him! There is no other logical explanation!' A corrupt Logos argument and a misunderstanding rife in American political, legal and forensic reasoning. The recently famous Flying Spaghetti Monster meme is a contemporary refutation of this misconception—simply because we cannot conclusively refute the existence of such an absurd entity that does not argue for its existence.

Also a priori argument, appeal to closure, fool's folly, and argument from silence.

The argument from disbelief

The common fallacy of questioning or rejecting a new claim or argument simply because it appears superficially "incredible," "crazy," or "insane," or because it contradicts one's personal beliefs, prior experience, or ideology . This cynical fallacy falsely elevates the adage popularized by Carl Sagan that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to an absolute law of logic. See also Hoyle's error. The common form of this popular-level fallacy is to dismiss surprising, extraordinary, or unfamiliar arguments and evidence with a wave of the hand or a shake of the head and say, "This is crazy!"

The argument of inertia

Also: "Stay on the right track"

The misconception that it is necessary to continue on a wrong path, regardless of the pain and sacrifice involved, and even after discovering it, is wrong because if you change course, you would admit that your decision (or its leader or its country) or your faith) was wrong and all the effort, expense, sacrifice and even bloodshed was in vain, and that is unthinkable. Some of the arguments stem from consequences, E for effort or appeal to tradition. See also Throwing good money after bad money.

The argument from motives

Also question marks about motives

The fallacy of invalidating a position or argument solely because of the evil, corrupt, or dubious motives of the person making the assertion. For example: "Bin Laden wanted us to withdraw from Afghanistan, so we must continue the fight!" Even bad people with the most corrupt motives sometimes tell the truth (and even good people with the highest and purest motives are often wrong). A variation on the ad hominem argument. The flip side of this fallacy is falsely justifying or excusing evil or cruel acts because the perpetrator's motives are apparently pure or lack maliciousness. (For example, "Sure, she bloodied her kids from time to time, but she was a highly educated, ambitious professional woman who was at the end of her tether, without adult conversation, and trapped with a bunch of screamers for years. She fights against brats and doing her best with what little she has. How can you stand there and accuse her of child abuse?")

See also Moral Licenses.

argument to the staff

Also: "Argument of the Club", "Argumentum ad Baculam", "Argument of Strength", "Muscular Leadership", "Non-negotiable claims", "Hard Power", "Bullying, power play, fascism, decision by force of arms". , shock and awe.

The fallacy of using force, violence, brutality, terrorism, acts of God, brute force, or threats of force to “convince” or “prove” someone that they are right. E.g. "Give me your wallet or I'll blow your head off!" or "We have every right to take your country since we have the big guns and you don't." Also applies to indirect threats. For example: "Abandon your foolish pride, kneel down and accept our religion today if you don't want to burn in hell forever and ever!" A mainly discursive argument ad baculum is to silence opponents and treat them as " not judging on an equal footing", "blocking, censoring or blocking their message" or simply talking over them or/or speaking louder than them, the latter being a tactic particularly attributed to men in mixed-gender discussions.

argument for the secret

ALSO: "Argument from the Mystery"; also mystagogy.

A darkened room, incense, chanting or drumming, bowing and kneeling, special robes or headgear, sacred rituals, and powerful voices reciting sacred secrets in an unknown language are hypnotic and often more persuasive than any logical argument. The Puritan Reformation was largely a rejection of this misunderstanding. When used consciously and intentionally, this misunderstanding is particularly evil, and explains some of the terrible persuasive powers of cults. An example of an argumentum ad mysteryam is "A long time ago and far awayFallacy, the fact that facts, evidence, practices or arguments from ancient times, distant lands and/or 'exotic' cultures seem to be given special weight or ethos simply because of their antiquity, language or origin, e.g. in their original (often unintelligible) ancient languages, preferring the Greek, Latin, Assyrian or Old Slavic Christian liturgies to their vernacular versions, or using classical or newly invented Greek and Latin names to support their validity.

See also Esoteric Knowledge. A cover of the Argumentum ad Mysteriam is the fallacy of the standard version.

argument from silence

Also: argument from the silence

The fallacy that when available sources are silent or current knowledge and evidence cannot prove anything about a particular subject or challenge that fact, itself proves the truth of one's claim. E.g. Science cannot tell us anything about God. It proves that God does not exist.” Or: “Science admits that it cannot tell us anything about God, so the existence of God cannot be denied!” From innocence to proof of guilt is often falsely silenced or taken for the "fifth". B. “Mr. Hixon is unable to provide an alibi for his whereabouts on the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was actually in room 331 of the Smuggler's Inn and killed his wife with an axe!” In America today, someone who remains silent in the face of questioning by a police officer may be guilty enough of being arrested or even shot.

See also argument from ignorance.

availability bias

Also: attentional bias, anchor bias

A misunderstanding of logos resulting from the natural tendency to place undue attention and importance on information that is readily available, particularly first or last information received, and more extensive data or evidence that is clearly present but not as easily remembered or to be ignored will be minimized or ignored. approached. E.g. “We know from experience this doesn't work” while “experience” means the last local effort and disregards the overwhelming experience of other places and times when it hasHas worked andAgainProfession. This is also linked to the misconception ofHyperbool[also magnified or sometimes catastrophic], where a short-lived case is immediately heralded as "the most momentous in all of human history" or "the worst in the entire world"! This last misunderstanding works extremely well with less educated audiences and those whose "whole world" is very small, an audience that "hates history" and whose historical memory stretches for weeks at best.

error of the follower

Also: common sense argument, argument to the people

The fallacy of claiming that something must be true and correct because "everyone," "the people," or "the majority" (or anyone in power who has broad support) supposedly thinks or does. For example: "Whether there really is widespread voter fraud in America is something that many now believe, and it makes it so."You can find it under Statistics, e.g. B. “More than 75% of Americans believe corrupt Bob Hodiak is a thief, a liar and a pervert. There may not be any evidence, but anyone in their right mind can conclusively prove that Crooked Bob was in the I Should Be In Jail! Lock him up! Lock him up!" This is sometimes combined with "Argumentum ad Baculum," for example: "Like it or not, it's time to choose a side: get in the car with everyone else, or you will crushed under the wheels?” ' Or in the words of former White House Speaker Sean Spicer in 2017, 'They've got to follow the program or they can go,' is a modern day digital form of the bandwagon fallacy"Information Cascade",where people repeat the opinions of others, usually online, even when their own opinion or handling of information contradicts that opinion. When cascades of information form a pattern, that pattern can begin to drown out subsequent opinions by making it appear as if consensus already exists.” (Thanks to Teaching Tolerance for this definition!)

They are also Wisdom of the Crowd and The Big Lie Technique.

The opposite of this fallacy can be found in the romantic rebel fallacy.

The cerebrum/cerebellum fallacy

Also: leader principle; Madness breeds sickness

A not uncommon but extreme example of the blind loyalty error listed below is when a tyrannical commander, army chief, or religious or cult leader says to his followers, "Don't think with yours."lillebrain (the brain in your head) but with youGROSSBrain (mine).' The latter is sometimes expressed positively, e.g. B. "You need not worry about whether what you are doing is right or wrong, for I am the leader." I take moral and legal responsibility for all your actions. As long as you follow your commands faithfully and without question, I will defend you and will gladly accept the consequences, up to and including eternal damnation, if I am wrong.”

The opposite of this is the fallacy of plausible deniability. See also "Just do it!" and "Gas light".

The big "but" misunderstanding

Also: special request

The fallacy of proclaiming a generally accepted principle and then directly denying it with a "but". This often takes the form of a 'special case', allegedly exempt from the usual rules of law, logic, morality, ethics or even credibility. For example: "As Americans, we've always believed in that."MooseHuman beings have God-given, inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, including, in the event of criminal charges, a due and speedy trial by a jury of peers.HERREN,"Your crime was so unspeakable, and a trial would be so problematic for national security, that it warrants life imprisonment in Guantanamo without trial, conviction or the possibility of an appeal." Or, "Yes honey, I still love you more than that." Live yourself, and I know I promised God in my marriage vows that I will forsake all others and be faithful to you until death do us part.”HerrenYou have to understand, this was a special case..."

See also "Shop Hungry" and "Should we do that?"Something!‘

The big lie technique

Also: The bold lie; "Stay on message."

Repeating today's fallacy, a lie, a misunderstanding, a slogan, a topic of conversation, a nonsensical statement or a misleading half-truth in various forms (particularly in the media) over and over again until they become part of everyday discourse and people see them as clear accept evidence or evidence. Sometimes, the bolder and weirder the big lie becomes, the more believable it appears to a willing, often angry, audience. For example: "What about the Jew problem?" Note that at the time of this particular spurious debate there was no "Jewish problem", only a Nazi problem, but hardly anyone in power acknowledged it or wanted to talk about it, while too many ordinary Germans were only too happy to find a suitable scapegoat to blame for their suffering during the Great Depression. Author Miles J. Brewer skillfully dismantles the technique of the big lie in his classic short story (1930).„Gostak en de Doshers“.More recent examples of the Big Lie fallacy, however, might include the entirely fictional "Tonkin Gulf Incident" of August 4, 1964, invented under Lyndon Johnson as a false justification for the escalation of the Vietnam War, or the non-existent "weapons of the masses." “destruction of Iraq” (conveniently abbreviated to “WMDs” to give this big lie a legitimizing, military-sounding “alphabet soup” ethos) used in 2003 as a false justification for the second Gulf War. The US President-elect's statement in November 2016 that "millions" of non-voting votes were cast in the US that year. The presidential election is proving to be a classic big lie.

See also Alternate Truth; Bandwagon fallacies, henchmen, alphabet soup and propaganda.

blind loyalty

Also: blind obedience, thoughtless obedience, the reputation of the "team player", the Nuremberg defense

The dangerous misconception that an argument or action is right simply because a respected leader or source (a president, an expert, one's parents, one's "side", one's team or country, one's boss or commanders ) says it's correct. It is an over-reliance on authority, a deeply corrupted ethos argument that places loyalty above truth, above reason, above conscience. In this case, someone tries to justify inappropriate, stupid, or criminal behavior by whining, "I was told so" or "I was just following orders."

They are also The Big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy and The "Soldiers' Honor" Fallacy.

blood is thicker than water

Also: preference; compadrismo; "For my friends, whatever."

The opposite of the “ad hominem” fallacy, a corrupt ethos argument where a statement, argument, or action is automatically taken as true, correct, and above average because someone is related to, knows, likes, or im same team or on the same side is seated. belongs to the same religion, party, association or fraternity as the person concerned. (E.g. "My brother-in-law says he saw you ruin your job. You work hard, but who should I believe, you or him? You're fired!") See also impersonation.

brainwashed

Also: propaganda, "radicalization".

The Cold War fantasy that an enemy can instantly persuade or "radicalize" an unsuspecting public with his vicious but somehow unspeakably persuasive "propaganda" e.g. Don't look at this website! They're trying to brainwash you with their propaganda!' Historically, "brainwashing" more correctly refers to the inhumane argument ad baculum to "force a fight" on a prisoner through a combination of pain, fear, sensory or sleep deprivation, prolonged abuse, and sophisticated psychological manipulation.Stockholm syndrome.'). Such “brainwashing” can also be done at will (“I love bombing raids,'); for example "Do you like it? i know you did it If you register with us, there are many more of them! (See also “bribery.”) An unspeakably sinister form of brainwashing persuasion is to intentionally get a person addicted to a drug and then give or withhold the drug, depending on whether the addict is willing. Hint: aloneOther thingsbrainwashing site. 'We'neverbrainwashed

bribery

Also: material conviction, material incentive, financial incentive

The fallacy of "persuasion" through bribes, gifts, or favors is the opposite of the argumentum ad baculum. It is well known that a bribe giver is “rarely persuaded” in the long run unless the bribes continue to come in and grow over time.

See also reconciliation.

"Map" call

A contemporary misconception of logos that wave at well-known or easily predictable but valid reasoned objections to one's position as mere 'cards' in some sort of 'game' of rhetoric, e.g. "Don't try to play me the 'race card'" or "She's playing the 'woman card' again" or "This 'Hitler card' doesn't score with me in this discussion." See also "Taboo and political correctness".

circular reasoning

Also: The vicious circle; Catch 22, Begging the Question, Circulus in Probando

A fallacy of Logos where A comes through B and B comes through A, e.g. "You can't get a job without experience, and you can't get experience without a job." Also refers to the false claim that something is true by repeating the same statement in different words. For example: "The witchcraft problem is the most pressing spiritual crisis in the world today." Why? Because witches threaten our eternal salvation.” A perverted argument by Logos. See also “The Big Lie Technique”.

The complex question

Today's fallacy of demanding a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered without first analyzing or challenging the basis of the question itself. For example: “Just answer me with “yes” or “no”: Did you think you could get away with plagiarism without suffering the consequences?” Or “Why did you rob that bank?” also applies to situations in which one is forced to accept or reject complex positions or proposals that contain both acceptable and unacceptable parts. A corruption of the logos argument.

A counterpart to the either-or argument.

confirmation preference

A fallacy of the logos, the general tendency to notice, seek, select, and share evidence that supports one's position and beliefs, as opposed to evidence to the contrary. This misconception is how "fortune tellers" work: if I'm told I'll meet a "tall dark stranger," I'll be on the lookout for a tall dark stranger, and if I meet anyone even marginally matching this one description, I would wonder if the "psychic" prediction is correct. In modern times, confirmation bias is most commonly seen in the tendency of different audiences to "compose their political environment, live on a one-sided information diet, and [even] vote in politically homogeneous neighborhoods" (Michael A. Neblo et al., 2017,Sciencesave on computer). Confirmation bias (also known as homophilia) means that people tend to seek out and follow only the media that confirms their shared ideological and cultural biases, sometimes to an extent that leads to the wrong (implicit or even explicit) conclusion that "all agree". with that bias and that anyone who doesn't is "crazy," "cheater," bad, or even "radicalized."

See also “half-truth” and “defense”.

cost distortion

A fallacy of ethos (that of a product), the fact that something expensive (either in terms of money or something “hard won”, “hard won”, or “paid dearly”) is generally valued more than anything that is free or purchased cheaply, regardless of the actual quality, utility, or actual value of the goods to the buyer. For example: “Hey, I worked hard to get this car! It may be nothing more than a rock that can't climb a steep hill, but it isMineAnd for me it's better than a millionaire's limousine.” The same applies to assessing the quality of a consumer product(or even from the owner!) mainly by the brand, price, label or source of the product e.g. B. "Hey, you in the Jay-Mart suit! Har-har!' or, “Oh, she drives oneMercedes!'

standard bias

Also: Normalize Evil, "Take Care of It"; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Resignation; "To make peace with the situation;" 'Get used to it;' 'SomethingIs, it's right;' 'It is what it is;' 'Let it be, let it be;' "This is the best of all possible worlds [or,Ifpossible world];' "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know."

The logical fallacy of automatically preferring or accepting a situation just because it currently exists and arguing that any other alternative is wrong, unthinkable, impossible, or at least would require too much effort, cost, stress, or risk to achieve change. The opposite of this misconception isnihilism("Tear it all down!"), blind rejection of what exists in favor of what might be, romanticizing the imagination of youth, anarchy and chaos (an ideology sometimes referred to as politics)chaos theory'), disorder, 'permanent revolution' or change for the sake of change.

defense

Also: Choice Support Bias: Myside Bias

A fallacy of (one's) ethos in which, having made a particular decision, commitment, or action, one automatically tends to defend that decision and irrationally reject opposing options, even if that decision later turns out to be repugnant or wrong . E.g. "Yes, I voted for Snith. Sure he turned out to be a villain and a liar and led us to war, but I still say he was better than the alternatives available at the time!'

See also 'argument from inertia' and 'confirmation bias'.

Willful ignorance

Also: narrow-minded; 'I do not want to hear that!'; motivated ignorance; Coordinate; Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil [The Three Monkeys Fallacy]

As described by the author and commenterBrian Resnik at Vox.com(2017), this is the fallacy of simply choosing not to listen, disabling or disabling information, evidence, or arguments that challenge one's belief, ideology, position, or peace of mind, making the popular humorous saying: "Don't try." confuse me with facts; I decided!' This seemingly harmless misunderstanding has enabled and continues to facilitate the most brutal tyrannies and abuses in history.

Dazu gehören unter anderem „Confirmation Bias“, „The Third Person Effect“, „They're All Crooks“, „Simpleton's Fallacy“ und „The Positive Thinking Fallacy“.

Diminished Responsibility

Today's common misconception of applying a particular legal concept (that criminal penalties should be less when one's judgment is impaired) to reality as a whole. For example, "You can't stay away on Monday — I had a hangover and couldn't make it to class, so it's not my fault." Or, "Yeah, I speeded on the freeway and killed a man, but I was crazy and didn't know what I was doing, so it didn't really matter.” In reality, death means a great deal of sacrifice to them, their family and friends, and to society in general. Whether the abuser was high or not doesn't matter as the material results are the same. This also includes the fallacy ofPanic, a common misconception today that someone's words or actions, no matter how harmful or evil, somehow don't "count" because "I panicked!" This misconception is rooted in the confusion of "consequences" and " Penalty".

See also "ventilation".

Disciplinary shadows

A common contemporary scientific or professional misperception of ethos (of one's discipline, profession, or academic field) that is automatically ignored, disregarded, or ignoredFirstotherwise relevant research, arguments, and evidence drawn from outside one's discipline, discourse community, or academia. E.g. “It may or may not be relevant, but it isSonot what we are currently doing in our field.” See also “Star Power” and “Two Truths”. That's an analogous misunderstandingdenominational blindersto arbitrarily ignore or dismiss without serious consideration arguments or discussions about beliefs, morals, ethics, spirituality, the divine or the afterlife that come from outside the respective religious community or belief tradition.

dog whistle policy

An extreme version of reductionism and slogans in public space, a contemporary error of logos and pathos where a short sentence or slogan is used in class, e.g. "Abortion", "The 1%", "9/11", "Zionism", "Chain Migration", "Islamic Terrorism", "Fascism", "Communism", "Big Government", "Taco Trucks!", "Taxes". - and taxes and spending and spending", "gun violence", "gun control", "freedom of choice", "unlock 'em", "amnesty" etc. are discarded as "red meat" or "dude in the water', one staggers that Audience knee-jerk into biting, seething frenzy. Any reasonable attempt to more clearly identify, deconstruct, or question an opponent's "dog-whistle" call leads to confused confusion at best and wild, irrational rage at worst. "Dog whistles" vary widely across place, time, and cultural settings, changing and losing or gaining momentum so rapidly that even recent historical texts are sometimes extremely difficult to interpret. A common but sad example of the dog whistle politics misunderstanding is that candidate “debaters” of different political persuasions simply yell a series of discursive “dog whistle” at their audience, rather than addressing, refuting, or even denying each other's arguments. Make an effort to listen to each other's arguments. , a situation that leads to Contemporary (2017) claiming that America’s political right and left speak “different languages” when they are merely blowing different “dog whistles.”

See also reductionism.

Fejlslutningen "Draw your own conclusion"

Also: The non-argument The argument; Let the facts speak for themselves

This misconception of logos presents carefully selected and curated “shocking facts” to an otherwise uninformed audience and then prompts them to “draw their own conclusions” immediately. E.g., "Crime rates are more than twice as high among middle-class Patzinacks as among any other comparable demographic group — draw your own conclusions." It is well known that those who are "allowed to draw their own conclusions" are generally much more confident than those to whom both evidence and conclusions are presented in advance. However, Dr. William Lorimer points out that "the only rational answer to the non-argument is 'so what?' H. 'What do you think you have proved and why/how do you think you have proved it?'” (if not identical) to this KnownDrogreden „Leading the Witness“., when asking a wrong, sarcastic or biased question just to get a desired answer.

The Dunning-Krueger Effect

A cognitive bias that causes people with limited skills or knowledge to mistakenly believe that their skills are greater than they actually are. (Thanks to Teaching Tolerance for this definition!) For example: “I know Washington was the father of his country and never lied, Pocahontas was the first Native American, Lincoln freed the slaves, Hitler killed six million Jews, Susan B. Anthony won equal.” Rights for women and Martin Luther King said “I have a dream!” Moses parted the Red Sea, Caesar said “Et tu, Brute?” and the only reason the US didn't win the Vietnam War like that as we. This always happened because they tied the hands of our generals and beat down the politicians and put them to flight. To see? Why should I take a history course? I knowaltabout history!'

E' for effort

Also: noble effort; I give my best; It lost the case

The common fallacy of ethos that something is only right, true, valuable, or worthy of respect and honor because someone (or someone else) has put so much genuine effort or even sacrifice and bloodshed into it. (See also Call to Pity; Argument from Inertia; All Heroes; or Sob Story). An extreme example of this fallacy isWaved the bloody shirt (Also,vonDescription of Blood of the Martyrs, the fallacy that a cause or argument, however dubious or reprehensible, cannot be questioned without dishonoring the blood and sacrifices of those who so nobly died for that cause. E.g. 'Defend the patriotic mutilation / It haunted the streets of Baltimore..' (from the official Maryland State Song).

This also includes Cost Bias, The Soldier's Honor Fallacy, and Argument from Inertia.

From/from redesign

Also: Wrong dilemma, think all or nothing; False dichotomy, black and white fallacy, wrong binary number

A misunderstanding of logos that wrongly offers only two possible options, when there are always a multitude of possible alternatives, variations and combinations. For example, “You're either 100% Simon Straightarrow or you're as weird as a three-dollar bill — it's that simple, and there's no in-between!” Or, “You're either with us all the way, or you you are with an enemy and must be destroyed! What will it be?” Or, if your performance is far from perfect, you think you're a terrible failure. applies to the false opposition of one option or concern to another that is not actually rejected, e.g. B. Black Lives Matter's false opposition to Blue Lives Matter, when in fact many police officers are African American themselves, and the police force is not (or should not be) a natural enemy. do.

See also overgeneralization.

ambiguity

The fallacy of deliberately not defining one's terms or knowingly using words in a different meaning than the audience understands. (For example, President Bill Clinton said he had no sexual relationship with "this woman," i.e., no sexual penetration, knowing that the public would interpret his statement as "I have had no sexual contact with this woman at all.") Falsification of the argument through logos and a tactic commonly used in US jurisprudence. Historically, this referred to a tactic used during the religious wars of the Reformation in Europe, in which people were forced to swear allegiance to one side or the other and through "ambiguity" do what was necessary, i.e. H. “When I solemnly swore true faith and allegiance to the king, I really meant it to King Jesus, the King of kings, and not to the evil usurper who sits on the throne today.” Obscenity or formal language. are subject to penalties for perjury in any legal or judicial situation.

The Eschatological Error

The age-old fallacy of the argument 'This world is ending, so...' is popularly refuted by the observation: 'Since the world is ending you don't need your savings anyway, so why don't you give me your all.' ?'

esoteric knowledge

Also: esoteric wisdom; gnosticism; inner truth; the inner sanctum; need to know

A misconception of logos and ethos that there is a certain knowledge reserved only for the wise, the saints, or the enlightened (or those with the appropriate security clearance), things that the masses cannot understand and do not deserve to knowing, at least not before you become wiser, more confident, or "spiritually advanced." The opposite of this misconception iscover up(also obscurationism or willful ignorance), who (almost always said in a basso profundo voice) "There are things that we mere mortals should never know!" E.g. "Scientific experiments that violate the privacy of the marriage bed and the deep and private secrets of human sexual behavior exposed to the glare of science are obscene, sinful and morally evil. There are things we humans just can't know!' For the opposite of the latter, see Plain Truth Fallacy.

See also argument for mystery.

essentialization

A misconception of logos that suggests that a person or thing "is what it is and that is all it is" and will always be essentially as it is today (e.g. "All are terrorists monsters and will still be terrorist monsters, even if they are”) Live to be 100 years old” or “You will always have the poor with you”, so any attempt to eradicate poverty is in vain. Also refers to the fallacy of claiming that something is in some way "natural," an empty claim that cannot be contradicted by any evidence. (For example, "Americans are naturally cold and greedy" or "Women are naturally better cooks than men.") See also Standard Distortion. The opposite of that isput into perspectivethe typical postmodern fallacy of happily dismissing all arguments against one's point of view by shrugging and replying, "Anyway... I don't feel like arguing about it"; 'Everything depends on...;' it is your opinion; Everything is relative;' or to falsely invoke Einstein's theory of relativity, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum alienness, or multiple universe theory to confound, confuse, or "refute" an opponent.

See also "Diversionary Maneuvers" and "Appeal to Nature".

The etymological error

Also: "The Underlying Meaning"

A Logos fallacy that draws false conclusions from the (often long-forgotten) linguistic origins of an existing word, or from the supposed meanings or associations of that word in another language. For example: “The term 'hysteresis' as used in physics, electronics and electrical engineering is grossly sexist, as it originally comes from the Greek word for 'womb' or 'womb'. Or, "I refuse to eat fish!" Don't you know that the French word for "fish" is "poisson," which is similar to the English word "poison"? And doesn't that say something for you? "Pharmacy" (1968).

The excluded middle

A corrupt argument by Logos that since a little is good, more must be better (or that if less is good, nothing is better). E.g. "If it's good for you to eat an apple a day, it's even better to eat only apples!" or "If a low-fat diet prolongs your life, a fat-free diet should give you eternal life!" from this misconception it isExcluded outliers, where one dismisses arbitrary evidence, examples, or findings that contradict one's point of view simply by describing them as "strange," "outlier," or "atypical." See also “The Big “But” Mistake.” The opposite is also trueA misconception in the middle(also Falacia ad Temperantiam; "The Politics of the Middle"; "Marginalization of the Opponent"), where one demonstrates the "reasonableness" of one's position (however extreme it may be) not in one's own strength, but solely or mainly by the fact that presenting it as the only "moderate" path between two or more clearly unacceptable extreme alternatives. E.g. Anti-Communist scholar Charles Roig (1979) notes that Vladimir Lenin successfully argued for Bolshevism in Russia as the only available "moderate" middle ground between bomb-throwing nihilistic terrorists on the ultra-left and a corrupt and hated tsarist autocracy on the left-right. As Texas politician and humorist Jim Hightower noted in an undated quote, "Middle of the street is for yellow lines and dead armadillos."

"F-Bombs"

Also: curse; Obscenity; strange words

A juvenile fallacy of pathos, an attempt to defend or reinforce one's argument with unnecessary, unrelated sexual, obscene, vulgar, offensive, or profane language when that language does nothing to reinforce an argument, except perhaps, a feeling to create identity with certain young male “urban” target groups. Also part of that misconception is adding unnecessary sex scenes or "adult" language to an otherwise unrelated novel or film, sometimes just to avoid the dreaded "G" rating. Related to this misunderstanding isNew misunderstandingby falsely drawing attention to, and possibly agreeing with, another person's reasoning by inappropriately sexualizing them, particularly by associating them with a form of sex that is considered deviant, perverted, or forbidden (e.g., e.g. by arguing against Bill Clinton's presidential legacy by continuing to wave Monica's). blue dress or against Donald Trump's presidency by compulsively emphasizing his boastful past). In the past, this dangerous fallacy was significantly linked to lynching, where false, racist allegations against a black or minority victim were almost always sensitive and the sensationalism involved was used successfully to inflate public sentiment to murderous levels.

See also red herring.

The wrong analogy

The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a wrong conclusion. For example: "Just as a house cat must roam, a normal adult cannot be attached to a single lover." The opposite of this misconception isThe self-righteous fallacy(also difference), a postmodern position that completely rejects the validity of analogy and inductive reasoning, on the grounds that every person, place, thing, or idea is 'sui generis', i.e. H. different and unique, in a class of its own.

Complete the task

The dangerous contemporary misconception, often aimed at a less educated or working-class public, that an action or position (or a continuation of that action or position) should not be questioned or debated because "there is a job to be done" or done, mistakenly assuming “jobs” are meaningless but never questioning it. Sometimes people "buy" the job and make it part of their own ethos.

Example: "Our job is not to reason why / Our job is only to do or die." Related to this is "just a jobMisunderstanding. (For example: "How can torturers bear to look at themselves in the mirror? But I'm fine with that, because for them it's just a job like any other, the job they're paid to do.")

These include Blind Loyalty, The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy, and Argument from Inertia.

The Fallacy of Free Speech

The infantile fallacy of reacting to criticism of one's own statements and positions with the nagging: "It's a free country, isn't it?" I can say what I want!" A contemporary case of this error is"Safe room",von'Safe place,'where refuting, challenging, or even discussing other people's beliefs is not allowed because it may be too uncomfortable or too "triggering" for emotionally vulnerable individuals. For example, "All I said to him was, 'Jesus loves little children,' but then he turned around and asked me, 'But what about birth defects?' It ismean.I think I'm going to cry!” Prof. Bill Hart Davidson (2017) notes: “Ironically, the strongest calls for 'safety' come from those who want us to protect discredited ideas.” Things science doesn't support AND that have destroyed lives - things like the inherent superiority of one race over another. These ideas wither away under the demand for proof. You *are* not welcome. But let's be clear: they're unwanted because they didn't stand the test of scrutiny.” Once in power, freedom of speech is usually abolished. In addition, a (201) scientific study found that “People think harder and make better political arguments when their views are challenged"and not artificially protected without contest."

The basic attribution error

Also: self-justification

This fallacy is a corrupted ethos argument and arises as a result of observing and comparing behavior. “You assume that other people's bad behavior is caused by character flaws and bad characters, while your behavior is explained by the environment. For example, I get up in the morning. Interestingly, it's more common in individualistic societies where we value oddities Collectivist societies tend to be more environmentally focused. (It happens there too, but is much less common.)” [Thanks to researcher Joel Sax for that!]self-mockery(also self-deprecating),where one deliberately belittles oneself out of either false humility or genuine lack of self-esteem, usually in the hope of attracting rejection, compliments, and praise.

gas light

A newly emerging, cruel fallacy that negates or invalidates a person's own knowledge and experience by intentionally distorting or distorting known facts, memories, scenes, events, and evidence in order to disorient a vulnerable opponent and lead him or her to do so force you to doubt her. her mind. E.g. “Who do you want to believe? Me or your own eyes?” Or: “You claim you found me in bedher? Think again! You're crazy! "You really need to see a psychiatrist."Emotional devaluation, interrogation, afterwards, that Reality or "validity" of affective states, that of another or your own. For example: “Of course I made it from start to finish, but that wasn't the caseMichDo it, it was just my stupid hormones that betrayed me." Or: "You didn't really mean it when you said you 'got' mom. Take a break now and you'll feel better.” Or, “No, you're not really in love; It's just infatuation or "puppy love". The gaslighting fallacy is named after British playwright Patrick Hamilton's 1938 play Gas Light, also known as Angel Street. See also Blind Loyalty, The Big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy, The Affective Fallacy, and Alternative Truth.

fault of the association

The fallacy of attempting to refute or condemn a person's views, arguments, or actions by invoking the negative ethos of those with whom the speaker is identified, or of any group, party, religion, or race to which he or she belongs or who he is associated with ever associated with it. A form of ad hominem argument, e.g. 'Don't listen to her. She is a Republican so her statement cannot be trusted” or “Are you a member of the Communist Party or have you ever been a member?” An extreme example of this is Machiavellisk"For my enemies nothing" misunderstanding, where real or supposed “enemies” are by definitionalwayswrong and shouldn't admit anything, not even the time of day, e.g. "He's a Republican. Even if he said the sky was blue, I wouldn't believe him."

half the truth

Also: deck cards, deck cards, incomplete information

A falsified argument by Logos, the fallacy of intentionally selecting, collecting and sharing evidence to support one's point of view, telling the hard truth but intentionally minimizing or omitting important key details in order to distort the big picture and reach an incorrect conclusion support. is that Bangladesh is one of the fastest growing countries in the world with a young, ambitious and hardworking population, a family-friendly culture, a wonderful warm climate with tropical beaches and palm trees where it never snows, cheap medical care and Dental care, a vibrant faith tradition and abundance of places of worship, exquisite, flavorful, world-class local curry cuisine, and a vibrant entertainment scene – all these solid facts taken together prove unequivocally that Bangladesh is among the world’s most desirable places for young families to live , work and start a family.')

See also confirmation bias.

Hero Destruction

Also: "The perfect is the enemy of the good"

A postmodern fallacy of the ethos that since nothing and nobody in this world is perfect, there are no heroes and there never were: Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, Lincoln was a racist (by our modern standards), Karl Marx used him sexually from family. owned a young housekeeper and got her pregnant, Martin Luther King Jr. also had an eye for women, Lenin condemned feminism, the Mahatma drank his own urine (ugh!), lots of other things too, etc. etc. Also applies to the now almost universal political tactic of sifting through everything an opponent has said, written or done since childhood to findsomethingmisinterpret or judge (and we all do).something!). An early example of this latter tactic is cleverly described in Robert Penn Warren's (1946) classic novel:All the king's men. This is the opposite of the Heroes All fallacy below. The misconception "hero busting" was also used specifically in the service ofidentity error(see below) to falsely "prove" that "no one can be trusted" except a member of "our" identity groupeverything else, even the so-called "heroes" or "allies" of other groupsbeeracist, sexist, anti-Semitic or hate “us”. E.g. Abraham Lincoln said in 1862 that he would be willing to settle the American Civil War with or without freeing the slaves if that would preserve the Union, thereby "proving conclusively" that all white people are brutally racist at heart and must be African-American do the same for themselves and do not trust any of them, not even those who claim to be allies.

Heroes all

Also: "Everyone's a winner"

The contemporary misconception thatatis above average or exceptional. A corrupt argument of pathos (not wanting anyone to lose or feel bad). So,MooseMember of the Armed Forces, past or present, who is serving honorably, is a national hero,MooseA student who attends the science fair wins a ribbon or trophyMooseThe racers receive a yellow winner's jersey. This bastardization of the argument from pathos, often ridiculed by the disgraced American humorist Garrison Keeler, ignores the fact that when everyone winsNeewins and when everyone is a heroimpressivelya hero. The corollary to this misunderstanding is, as children's author Alice Childress (1973) writes, "A hero is but a slice of bread."

See also "Error of Soldier's Honor".

Hoyle's misunderstanding

A logos fallacy that falsely assumes that a possible event has a low (even infinitesimal) probability that it canneverhas happened and/or will happenneverhappen in real life. For example: "The probability that something as complex as human DNA could have arisen through purely fortuitous evolution over the time that the earth has existed is so negligible for all practical purposesimpossibleInmusthas required divine intervention.” Or, “The odds of a casual Saturday night poker player getting four aces in a fair shuffle are so infinitesimally small that it never happens in real life!” EvilProofYou cheated!' See also argument from incredulity. A downside to Hoyle's fallacy is"You can't win if you don't play"(also: “Someone is going to win, and it might as well be YOU!”), a common and cruel modern misconception used to persuade vulnerable audiences, particularly the poor, math-illiterate and addicted gamblers, to buy their Losing money in the lottery, horse racing, casinos and other long-standing gambling programs.

I wish I had a magic wand

The fallacy of regretfully (and wrongly) declaring oneself powerless to change a bad or offensive situation over which one has power. E.g. What can we do about gas prices? As Secretary of Energy, I wish I had a magic wand, but I don't have one” (shrugs). Or, "No, you can't stop taking piano lessons. I wish I had a magic wand and could teach you piano overnight, but I don't. Whether you like it or not, you have to keep practicing.” Parents, of course, ignore the possibility that the child likes it or not. I have to learn piano.

See also Tina.

The Identity Mistake

Also: identity politics; "Dy, ancient forms and logic!"

A corrupt postmodern argument from ethos, a variant of argumentum ad hominem in which the validity of one's logic, evidence, experience, or argument does not depend on one's strength, but rather on whether the argumentator is a member of a particular social class, generation , nationality, religious or ethnic group, skin color, gender or sexual orientation, occupation, occupation or subgroup. In this fallacy, valid counter-evidence and arguments are dismissed or "recited" without comment or consideration, simply because they are not worth discussing, due solely to the lack of proper background or ethos of the person making the argument, or because the person arguing is not worth discussing. It. do not identify as a member of the "in-group". E.g. “You would understand me immediately if you were Burmese, but since you are not there is no way I can explain it to you” or “No one but another nurse can know what a nurse is going through.” Identity mistakes are made through sharing strengthenedRitual,language and discourse. However, these fallacies are occasionally self-serving, fueled by the selfish aspirations of academics, politicians, and would-be group leaders who wish to build their own careers by fleshing out a specific identity group constituency to the exclusion of existing broader identities and leadership. . . An identity error can result in potentially useful, real, or potential allies being ridiculed or rejected for not belonging to one's identity. The identity flaw promotes an exclusivist, sometimes sectarian, "do it yourself" philosophy that in today's world virtually guarantees self-marginalization and eventual defeat. A more recent application of the misidentification is the erroneous accusation: "cultural appropriation'where those who do not have the correct identity are condemned for having “appropriated” the cuisine, dress, language or music of a marginalized group, forgetting the old axiom that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”. Accusations of cultural appropriation very often stem from competing selfish economic interests (e.g., "What right do these gringos have to set up an Ataco store here on Guadalupe Drive to deprive Doña Teresa's Taquería of business? They even dare playing Mexican music in their restaurant. "Space! It's cultural appropriation!")

See also Miscellaneous.

Infotainment

Also: infotainment; fake news; info wars

A highly corrupt and dangerous misconception fueled by the modern media that knowingly mixes facts, news, untruths and outright lies with entertainment, a mix usually concocted with specific ideological and profit motives. The origins of this misunderstanding lie before the present day in the form of "yellow" or "tabloid journalism". This deadly misunderstanding has fueled endless social unrest, discontent, and even gun wars (e.g., the Spanish–American War) throughout modern history. Proponents of this fallacy sometimes hypocritically justify its use by arguing that their readers/listeners/viewers "know in advance" (or).shouldknow) that the content provided is not real news and is provided for entertainment purposes only, but that this warning is rarely heeded by an uncritical audience that eagerly devours the provider's content.

See also Dog Whistle Guidelines.

Jobs consoles fallacies

Also: "Karma is a bee**;" "Everything comes at some point."

The misconception that every accident or natural disaster we suffer must be a punishment for our own or other people's secret sin, since there is no accident and we (me, my group or my country) are under the special protection of heaven stand or overt malice. The opposite of "Appeal to Heaven" is the fallacy used by members of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest the burials of fallen military personnel in the United States.

See also magical thinking.

Just do it.

Also: 'find a way;' "I don't care how you do it." "Complete the mission." "Definitely necessary."

A pure, insulting argumentum ad baculum (argument of power) in which a ruler arbitrarily brushes aside or ignores the moral objections of subordinates or followers and orders them to use any means necessary, right or wrong, to achieve an end. The clear conclusion is that unethical or immoral methods must be used. For example: "You say that you cannot complete the excavation in time because when you excavated you found an old pioneer cemetery with a beautiful tombstone?" Well, find a way! Let it go!Just do it! I do not want to knowHowYou do it, you just do it! It's a million-dollar contract and we have to sign it by Tuesday."

See also Plausible Denial.

Just normal people

Also: "Values"

This corrupt modern argument of ethos argues to a less educated or rural audience that the argumentative are "common people" who are "common talkers," "say what s/he thinks," "fake political correctness," someone who " She" is "I don't need a dictionary to understand it" and who thinks like the public and is therefore credible, in contrast to a member of the smart-talking, latte-sipping Left Coast political elite, a "double dome" professor "in- "Bureaucrat from the Washington Belt," "Treekeeper," or some other despised outsider who "doesn't think like us" or "doesn't share our values." This is the opposite of the ad hominem error and usually also has a clear indication of xenophobia or racism.

See also common error of truth and silly error.

The law of unintended consequences

Also, "Every revolution eventually eats its own boy:" Grit; The Resilience Doctrine

In this extremely dangerous, arch-pessimistic postmodern miscalculation, the false "Law of Unintended Consequences," once a semi-humorous satirical cousin of "Murphy's Law," is elevated to the ironclad law of history. This misunderstanding is proclaimed haphazardlyFirstwe can never knowaltor safe anticipationsomething, sooner or later in today's “complex world” unpredictable negative consequences and negative side effects (so-called “unknown unknowns”)alwaysultimately overwhelming and overwhelming, nullifying and destroying all naïve "well-wishers" attempts to improve our world. Instead, always expect defeat and be prepared to take a hit by developing Courage or Resilience as your primary survivability. This nihilistic fallacy is a practical negation of the possibility ofatvalid argument from logos.

See also Tina.

You can find it under Statistics

Today's fallacy of abusing real numbers and numbers to "prove" incoherent claims. (e.g. “In real terms, college education has never been cheaper than it is today. As a percentage of the national debt, the cost of college education is much lower today than it was in 1965!”). A corrupt argument by Logos, often based on the public's perceived or actual mathematical ignorance. This includes the fallacy that just because a fairly important scope of action is a small percentage of something much larger, it becomes somehow insignificant. For example, the arbitrary arrest, detention or wiretapping of "only" a few hundred legally embarked international travelers, a small percentage of the tens of thousands who normally arrive. Following the same misconception, a consumer who would choke on spending an extra dollar on two cans of peas would typically ignore $50 more on the price of a car or $1000 more on the price of a home just because they differ only slightly in percentage of the much larger amount spent. In the past, the sales tax, or sales tax (VAT), has successfully caught the public's eye and remains "under the radar" because of this latter misconception, despite hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in additional tax burdens.

See also Halvsandheden, Snejobbet and Rødsilden.

think magically

Also: The Sin of Presumption; Expect a miracle

An old but misguided misconception of Logos holds that when it comes to "breaking the time" one has enough faith, prays hard enough, says the right words, performs the right rituals, "names and claims" or " stresses". the promise: "God will always overrule the laws of the universe and perform a miracle at the behest or in the name of the true believer." In practice, this nihilistic fallacy denies the existence, and hence the possibility, of a rational or predictable universeatvalid argument from logic

See also Positive Thinking, The Appeal to Heaven, and Job's Comforter Error.

Little Fides

Subject: Argument in bad faith;Also fallacies

Using an argument that the argumentator himself knows is invalid. For example, an unbeliever who attacks believers by throwing verses from their own scriptures at them, or an attorney who pleads the innocence of a person he knows is guilty. The latter is common practice in American jurisprudence and is sometimes portrayed as "the worst face of sophistry" [Special thanks to Bradley Steffens for pointing out this misunderstanding!] This error also includes the error ofmotivating truth (Also, Demagogi,voncampaign promises)intentionally lying to "the people" in order to gain their support or to motivate them to take an action that the rhetorician deems desirable (use of bad discursive means for a "good" material end). A particularly bizarre and corrupt form of the latter fallacy isself-deception(Also,whistling in the graveyard).When one consciously and willfully deceives oneself in order to achieve a goal, or perhaps simply to quell fear and maintain one's energy levels, enthusiasm, morale, peace of mind, or state of mind in the face of adversity.

measurability

The modern misconception of measurability is a corrupted argument of logos and ethos (that of science and mathematics) and assumes that what cannot be measured, quantified, and reproduced either does not exist or is "nothing but anecdotal, tangible things “ is worth .” serious consideration, i.e. only gossip or subjective opinion. To achieve “measurability” it is often necessary to pre-select, manipulate or “massage” the available data simply to make it statistically manageable or to to support a desired conclusion.This is how researcher Thomas Persing describes "modernity's misunderstanding of the erroneous and inappropriate use of norms, standardizations, and data point requirements to quantify productivity or success." where the user tries to categorize complex/diverse topics in terms that, when measured, fit their position.

Example: "The inflation calculation in the United States does not take into account changes in the price of gasoline because the price of gasoline is too volatile, even though gasoline is essential to most people in the United States."

See also A Priori Argument, Statistics Lie, and Procrustean Fallacy.

read minds

Also: "The fallacy of speculation"; "I can read you like a book" An old misconception, a perversion of the stasis theory that involves speculating on other people's thoughts, feelings, urges and "body language" and then claiming to understand them clearly, sometimes more accurately than the person knows. The rhetorician uses this false "knowledge" as a false justification for or against a particular point of view. Scholar Myron Peto cites the unsubstantiated claim that “Obama is not a human rights advocate” as an example. Claims that they "invite speculation" are rightly dismissed as false in US court cases, but all too often go unchallenged. in public discourse. The opposite of this fallacy is the postmodern fallacy ofspiritual blindness(also theAutistic Misunderstanding); Strongly propounded by the late postmodern guru Jacques Derrida, this misconception is bound to demolish any kind of stasis theory. However, the fallacy of mind blindness has been definitively debunked in several studies, includingRecent (2017) research published by the Association for Psychological Science, and a study (2017) from Derxel University shows how"Our minds agree when we communicate."

moral license

The contemporary ethical fallacy that a person's consistent moral living, good conduct, or recent extreme suffering or sacrifice entitles them to commit an immoral act without consequence, consequence, or punishment. E.g. "I've been fine all year, so a bad one doesn't matter" or "After all I've been through, God knows I need this." The moral liberty fallacy is sometimes applied to nations as well, e.g. “Those who criticize the oppression and Gulag in the former USSR forget the extraordinary suffering Russians endured in World War II and the millions and millions who lost their lives in the process.” See also Argument from Motives. The opposite of this fallacy is the (extremely rare nowadays) ethical fallacy ofscruples,where one is obsessed with pathological excesses over one's accidental, forgotten, unknown, or unforgiven sins and hence faces the seemingly inevitable prospect of eternal damnation.

moral superiority

Also: self righteousness; the moral superiority

An ancient, immoral and extremely dangerous misconception propagated in the late medieval Thomistic/Scholastic philosophy that evil has no rights that the good and just must respect. In it lies torture, heretical burnings and the Spanish Inquisition. Those who practice this cruel fallacy reject any "moral equivalence" (i.e., equal treatment) between themselves (the just) and their enemies (the wicked), to whom everything is just and should be accorded nothing, not even the right to live . This error is a specific negation of the ancient "golden rule" and has been the cause of endless stubborn conflicts, because being just it is not possible to negotiate with evil and its accomplices; The only conceivable way to a "just" peace is total victory, that is, the absolute defeat and liquidation of one's own evil enemies. The American folk singer and Nobel Prize winner Bob Dylan skillfully debunked this misunderstanding in his 1963 protest song."With God on our side."

See also Appeal to Heaven and Moving the Goalposts.

humiliation

Also: Live as if you were going to die; pleasure hatred; No pain no gain

An ancient fallacy of the Logos that seeks to "subdue" the flesh through extreme or ascetic exercise, intentional starvation, or the infliction of pain, thereby negating the undeniable fact that discomfort and pain exist to warn of permanent damage to the body . Extreme examples of this misconception are various forms of self-tapping as practiced in New Mexicoremorseful' during Holy Week or by Shia devotees during Muharram. More prominent contemporary manifestations of this misconception are extreme "frenzied exercise regimens" that are not intended for normal health, fitness, or competitive purposes, but simply to "harden" or "punish" the body. Certain popular nutritional theories and diets also seem to be based on this misconception. Some contemporary experts suggest that self-flagellation (an English word related to the Latin-French root 'mort' or 'death') is actually 'suicide by installments'. Others suspect that this is a drug-like addiction to the body's endorphins.

The opposite of this error is the old error ofhedonism, seeks and values ​​physical pleasure as a good in itself, simply for its own sake.

Moving the goalposts

Also: change the rules; In love and in war all is fair; The nuclear option

"Winning isn't everythingIfting‘): A fallacy of logos that demands a certain amount of evidence or evidence, a certain level of support, or a certain number of votes in order to decide a matter, and if offered, still more, different or better support is demanded in order to to defeat an opponent and deny victory. For those who practice the fallacymoral superiority(above) Moving the goalposts is often considered perfectly good and allowed when necessary to prevent the victory of evil and ensure one's side's triumph, ie. H. the fair one.

Mind your own business

Also: you are not responsible for me; "None of your beeswax", "And then?", The appeal to privacy

Today's fallacy of arbitrarily banning or terminating any discussion of one's attitude or behavior, no matter how absurd, dangerous, malicious, or offensive, by drawing a false curtain of privacy around oneself and one's actions. A corrupt argument from ethos (your own). For example: "Of course I was driving in the 80's and pacing between lanes on Mesa Street - what's that got to do with you? You're not a cop, you're not my babysitter. It's up to me to go faster and yours to get out.” By the way. Mind your own goddamn business!' Or, 'Yeah, I killed my baby. So what? go away It wasn't your brat, so that's none of your damn business!” “It's none of your business!” See also "Taboo". The opposite of this is "Nobody will ever know(aka "What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas"; "I Think We're Alone Now" or Heart of Darkness Syndrome) the misconception that just because nobody's looking is important (or because you're on vacation, in college or in...abroad) one is free to commit any immoral, selfish, negative or evil act as one sees fit without facing the usual consequences or penalties. Author Joseph Conrad vividly describes this type of moral decay in Kurtz's character in his classic novel:heart of darkness.

attribution

A variation on the "ad hominem" argument. The dangerous misconception that any argument, disagreement, or objection to a person's point of view or actions based solely on who someone is or claims to be is automatically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, biased, discriminatory, or hateful. For example, "My position on abortion is the only correct one." If you disagree with me, argue with me, or challenge my judgment in any way, just show what a "bastard you really are" by saying simply call it a "misunderstanding" or refute it without proving itWhyIt invalidates or outright dismisses arguments or opponents by calling them "racist", "communist", "fascist", "idiots" (whatever the name is, followed by the suffix "tard" (short for the highly offensive "retard") or any other negative name without further explanation. E.g. "He's an asshole, end of story" or "I'm a loser."nose talkError, identification with a certain target group by inventing or using racist or insulting, sometimes military-sounding nicknames for opponents or enemies, e.g. "Those damn DINOS are worse than the repugs and neocons." Or: "You big one, we only have five years needed to beat both the J*ps and the Jerry's, but why are we having such a hard time beating a ragtag group of Hajjis over a decade and a half after the Niner?" "and towel heads?" Notice that word "Nazi" originally belonged in this category, but this term has long been used as a proper noun in English.

See also reductionism, ad hominem argument, and alphabet soup.

The narrative fallacy

Also: The Fable; the signboard

The age-old error of persuasion in telling a "heartwarming" or terrifying story or fable, especially to an uneducated or uncritical audience less inclined to understand purely logical arguments or general principles. E.g. A Christmas carol by Charles Dickens. Stories and fables, especially those that name names and personalize arguments, usually arelangare more persuasive at the popular level than other forms of reasoning and are practically irrefutable, even when the story in question is commonly known to be purely fictional. This misunderstanding exists even within science, as has been noted bya recent (2017) scientific study.

De Not in My Back Yard fejlslutning

Also "Build a wall!"; "Lock her up and throw away the key." The ostrich strategy; The Gitmo solution

The infantile misconception that a problem, challenge, or threat that is not physically near or directly exposed to me has practically "gone" and no longer exists. For example, a problem can be permanently and definitively resolved by making it "disappear," preferably to a location that is "out of sight," a walled ghetto, or a remote island where there is no news coverage and where there is nothing important residence gives . When it's absent, it can just disappear, censoring or ignoring "negative" media coverage and public discussion of the issue, and focusing on "positive, encouraging" things.

No discussion

Also: no negotiation; the control voice; peace through strength; a powerful foreign policy; fascism

A pure argument ad baculum that rejects reasoned dialogue that offers either immediate, unconditional yield/surrender or defeat/death as the only two options for resolving even minor differences, e.g. shouting "Now lie down on the floor!" Don't talk to terrorists.” This deadly misconception misrepresents real or potential “enemies” as monsters for no reason and all too often contains a very strong element of “macismo”. i.e. "A true, muscular leader never resorts to panty liners, apologies, excuses, fancy talk or arguments." It's for lawyers, liars and wimps and nothing more than a delaying tactic. A real man stands tall, says what's on his mind, draws fast, and shoots to kill.” The late actor John Wayne depicted this fallacy many times in his film roles.

See also pout.

Not a real Scot

Make a generalization true by changing the generalization to exclude a counterexample.

Nichtanerkennung

A fallacious misconception in which someone consciously chooses not to publicly acknowledge the basic truth, usually on the theory that doing so would somehow reward the wrongdoers if we acknowledge their actions as real or consistent. Often the underlying theory is that the situation is “temporary” and will change soon. In the decades from 1949 to Richard Nixon's presidency, the United States refused to officially recognize the existence of the world's most populous nation, the People's Republic of China, because America instead supported China's pro-US government in Taiwan, hoping they could somehow regain power on the mainland. Conversely, in 2016, the US president-elect sparked significant international backlash when he spoke to the president of the Taiwanese government, in de facto violation of the US's longstanding non-recognition of the same regime. More than half a century after the Korean War, the United States still refuses to designate or recognize (let alone engage in normal, peaceful negotiations with) a nuclear-armed DPRK (North Korea). Applying this fallacy runs the risk of institutionalization (e.g., "I refuse to admit to my mother's murder because that would bring victory to the killer! I refuse to see her buried! Stop! Stop!") , but tragically, such behavior is all too common. in international relations.

See also Fallacy of State Actors, Political Correctness, and Pouty Mouth.

The non-sequel

The fallacy of presenting evidence, reasons, or conclusions that have no logical connection with the argument at hand (e.g., "The reason I rejected your course is that the US government is now issuing purple five-dollar bills outputs!")Lilla!’). Sometimes it's about the breathtaking arrogance of claiming to have special knowledge about why God, destiny, karma or the universe does certain things. Eg: "This week's earthquake was clearly intended to punish these people for their great wickedness." See also Magical Thinking and Appeal to Heaven.

Nothing new under the sun

Also: uniformitarianism, "seen everything before"; 'Surprise surprise;' "The more it changes, the more it stays the same."

This deeply cynical fallacy, a perversion of the Logos argument, is quite rare in contemporary discourse and falsely suggests that there is, and never will be, real novelty in this world. Any argument that there are truly "new" ideas or phenomena will be examinedFirstunworthy of serious discussion and dismissed with a weary sigh and a wave of the hand as "the same, the same." E.g. "[Sigh!] Idiots! Can't you see that the current influx of refugees from the Middle East is the very same ancient Islamic invasion of Christianity that's been going on for 1,400 years?” is the antinomian heresy. As I said, there is nothing new under the sun!'

See also red herring.

Olfactory rhetoric

Also: "The nose knows it"

A zoological level of ferocious pathos blunder in which opponents are marginalized, dehumanized, or hated primarily because of their perceived scent, lack of personal cleanliness, imagined illnesses, or dirt. For example: "These protesters are demanding things, but I won't talk to them until they go home to shower first!" Or: "I smell a Jew at the end of the block!" Also applies to disparaging other cultures or Nationalities because of their different cuisines, e.g., 'I don't care what they say or do, their breath always stinks of garlic.'And have you ever smelled their kitchens?' Olfactory rhetoric walks the line between fallacy and psychopathology . AStudy from 2017 at the Ruhr University Bochumsuggests that olfactory rhetoric does not arise from a simple, automatic physiological response to an actual odor, but actually relies heavily on one person's preconceived response or prejudice toward another, and that one's olfactory center "is activated even before we smell a smell perceive".

Ook: „Oh, ik vergat ...“, „The Judicial Surprise“, „The October Surprise“

A corrupted logos argument in which an opponent of the decisive end of a discussion, debate, process, campaign period, or decision-making process suddenly, verbally, and usually sarcastically flares up after presenting only one important fact, argument, etc. Evidence – e.g. "Oops, I forgot to ask you: youWarAlready convicted of the same crime twice, right?!' This misunderstanding is forbidden in American legal discourse and is all too common in public discourse. The same goes for the supposed "discovery" and sensational reporting of potentially damning information or evidence, and then, after the damage has been done or the decision made, quietly declaring, "Oops, I guess that wasn't that important." Ignore what I said. Sorry that!'

Other things

Also: Thinking differently, "They are not like us", stereotyping, xenophobia, racism, prejudices

A highly corrupt, discriminatory argument from ethos, where any fact, argument, experience, or objection is arbitrarily ignored, disregarded, or dismissed without serious consideration because those involved are "not like us" or "not like we think". It's okay for Mexicans to make a piece an hour in maquiladoras (Mexico-based “twin factories” run by US or other foreign companies). If it happened here, I would call it brutal exploitation and daylight robberies, but south of the border, in Mexico, the economy is different and they're not like us." Or: "They say life is really terrible there. Terrorists who ever think of blowing themselves up with suicide vests to make a mark, but always remember they are different from us. They don't think about life and death like we do. A malicious variant of the ad hominem fallacy, usually applied to non-white or non-Christian populations. A variation on this misconception is"Speakee" error(“You speakee da English?”; also Shibboleth), where an opponent's arguments are ridiculed, ridiculed, and dismissed solely on the basis of the speaker's perceived or actual accent, dialect, or lack of command of standard English, e.g. B. Me: “Cattle traders need to form a YouUnion!” But I told him I'm not a fork and should come back when he's learned to speak English well.” A very dangerous, extreme example of othering isdehumanization,a fallacy of false analogy where opponents are dismissed as mere cockroaches, lice, monkeys, monkeys, rats, weasels, or blood-sucking parasites that have absolutely no right to speak or live and should probably be "crushed like insects." This misunderstanding is ultimately the "logic" behind ethnic cleansing, genocide and gas furnaces. See also The Identity Mistake, Insults, and Olfactory Rhetoric.

The opposite of this fallacy is the “Pollyanna Principle” below.

About explanation

A fallacy of Logos that stems from the real paradox that, beyond a certain point, more explanation, instruction, data, discussion, evidence or evidence leads inevitably to less, not more, understanding. Modern urban mythology claims that this fallacy is typically male ("Mansplaining'), while half a century ago the dominant myth was that men are naturally monosyllabic, grumpy, or nonverbal, while women typically over-explained (e.g., Joe Jones' hit "You Talk Too Much" in 1960). . According to researcher Danelle Pecht, mansplaining is “mansplaining’s annoying tendency for many men to always have to be the smartest one in the room, no matter the topic of conversation and no matter how much they actually know!”

See also "The Snow Job" and the "Plain Truth" fallacy.

overgeneralization

Also: hasty generalization; Totus for Parte's fallacy;the mereological error

A misconception about logos It offers a broad generalization that is considered true and overrides all special cases, particularly special cases that require immediate attention. E.g. "Doctor, you say that a flu shot is necessary at this time of year, but I counter that ALL shots are essential" (which means I will not put much emphasis on a flu shot). Or try to refute "Black Lives Matter" by replying "All Lives Matter". The latter is undeniably true, but still a flawed over-generalization in the specific and urgent context. Overgeneralization can also mean that a single negative outcome is viewed as an ongoing pattern of defeat. Overgeneralization can also lead to thisPars-pro-toto error, the silly but common fallacy of misapplying a real-life example or two to every case. For example, when a minority person commits a particularly heinous crime and their example is then used to tarnish the reputation of the group as a whole, or when a government publishes specific lists of crimes committed by suspected hate groups, e.g. Jews or undocumented immigrants. It is well known that the case of a Willie Horton in the 1988 US presidential election was successfully used in this way to harass African Americans, liberals and thereby also the Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. See also the "zero tolerance" fallacy below.

Analysis paralysis

Also: postponement; Nirvana fallacy

A postmodern misconception that has been saying ever sincebeeData never exist, any conclusion is always tentative, no legitimate decision can do thatalwaysAction should always be deferred until circumstances require it. A corruption of the logos argument.

See also Unintended Consequences Act.

The fallacy of the passive

Also: the bureaucratic passive

An ethical fallacy that conceals active human agency behind the curtain of the grammatical passive, e.g. "You have been decreed that you should be set free," elevating an ethos of cosmic infallibility and inevitability to a highly fallible conscious choice made by identifiable ones , fallible and possibly guilty people. Researcher Jackson Katz notes (2017): "We're talking about how many women were raped last year, not how many men were raping women." We're talking about how many girls were bullied in a school district last year, not how many boys girls bullied. We're talking about how many teenage girls got pregnant in the state of Vermont last year, not how many men and boys got teenage girls pregnant. ... So you can see how the use of the passive has a political effect. [It] shifts the focus from men and boys to girls and women. Even the term “violence against women” is problematic. It is a passive construction; The set does not contain any active substance. It's a bad thing that happens to women, but if you look at the term 'violence against women', no one does it to them, it just happens to them... men aren't even one of them. See also: Political correctness. A disadvantage of the passive fallacy isbe verb error, a cultic theory of language and the bane on the lives of many first-year composition students, which asserts that an extraordinary degree of "clarity", "common sense", or textual "liveliness" can be achieved by rigorously eliminating all passive verb forms from the verb "to be" from the English script. This strange but unproven claim, dating back to Alfred Korzybski's "General Semantics" self-improvement movement of the 1920s and 1930s through S.I. Hayakawa, happily ignores the fact that while several major world languages ​​lack a ubiquitous "to be" verb, e.g . It has never been demonstrated that Russian, Hindi, and Arabic speakers of these languages, like the English-speaking proponents of general semantics themselves, have some cognitive advantage over ordinary everyday users of the passive voice and the verb "to be". Nor did authors of the oddly stilted English that resulted from using this fallacy find success in academia, professional or technical writing, or in the popular arena.

paternalism

A severe lack of ethos, indiscriminately mocking, dismissing, or ignoring another's arguments or concerns as "childish" or "immature"; takes a condescending attitude of superiority towards opposing viewpoints or the opponents themselves. For example: "Your argument against the war is so infantile." Try approaching it like an adult for a change." "I don't disagreeKinder' or 'Someone has to be the adult in the room, and that might as well be me.' So you're wrong...' Also refers to the sexist fallacy of dismissing a woman's argument because she is a woman, e.g. B. "Oh, it has to be that time of the month, right?"

See also "Ad Hominem Argument" and "Tone Policing".

personalization

An ethos delusion in which one sees oneself or someone else as the primary cause of an external event for which one or the other person is not responsible. E.g. 'Never fail! It had to happen! It's my usual bad luck that on the day of our winter festival, the biggest snowstorm of the year hits. If I hadn't been involved, the snowstorm probably wouldn't have happened!" This fallacy can also be taken in a positive sense, e.g. Hitler apparently believed that just because he was Hitler, every bullet would miss him and no explosives could hit him. "Personalization" moves on the border between a fallacy and a psychopathology.

See also The Job's Comforter Fallacy and Magical Thinking.

The common truth fallacy

Auch: Simple Truth Fallacy, Salience Bias, KISS-Prinzip [Keep it Short and Simple / Keep it Simple, Stupid], de Monocausal Fallacy; de samenvatting

A misconception of logos that favors known, simple, summarized, or easily understood data, examples, statements, and evidence over those that are more complex and unknown, but much closer to the truth. E.g. “Oooh, look at all those equations and formulas! Just boil it down to the plain truth” or “I don't want that damn philosophy class!” Just tell me the plain truth about why this is happening.” The truth would always seek. to make it complicated. (See also The Snow Job and Overexplanation.) The opposite of this is the postmodern fallacy ofinexpressibilityvoncomplexity (also truth; post-truth),arbitrarily explain that today's world is so complex that itIsno truth, or that truth (capital T), if such exists, is unknowable except perhaps from God or the Messiah, and is therefore forever inaccessible and irrelevant to us mere mortals, making any convincing argument from Logos impossible.

See also The Big Lie and Analysis Paralysis.

plausible denial

A malicious ethical error in which a ruler compels those under their control to do a questionable or evil act, and then falsely accepts or hides responsibility for that act in order to protect those in power. E.g. "Have a fatal accident arranged, but don't tell me about it!"

Plays with emotions

Also: The Sob Story; the pathetic error; The Bleeding Heart fallacy, Drama Queen/Drama King fallacy

The classic fallacy of just arguing out of pathos, ignoring facts and evoking emotions. For example: “If you don't think witchcraft is a big deal, just shut up, close your eyes for a second and picture all these poor mothers crying bitter tears for their innocent little children , than comfy beds and happy tricycles lying there cold.” and deserted only because of the wicked old witches! Let's line them all up!” It's the opposite of thatApathetic misunderstanding(also Cynicism; Burnout; Compassion Fatigue), where all legitimate arguments are drowned out by pathos because, as noted country music star Jo Dee Messina (2005) sang, "My give-a-damn's busted." The cloak for gambling with emotions is the old misconception ofsophistication('SincerelyEmotions') where certain classes of creatures such as plants and non-domesticated animals, infants, infants and minor children, barbarians, slaves, sailors, farmhands, criminals and convicts, refugees, drug addicts, terrorists, Catholics, Jews, foreigners, poor, colored people , “hillbillies”, “hobos”, homeless or undocumented people or “the underclass” are generally considered incompetentsincerelyPain as we have it or are having itsincerelyFeelings', just brutal desires, mean desires, evil tendencies, dirty desires, biological instincts, psychological reflexes, and automatic tropisms. The well-known rhetorician Kenneth Burke, in his otherwise brilliant work (1966), falls into this last behavioral error.language as symbolic action,in his discussion of a bird trapped in a lecture hall.

See also Miscellaneous.

Political correctness('pc')

A postmodern fallacy, a counterpart of the "name calling" fallacy, which assumes that the nature of a thing or situation can be changed simply by changing its name. E.g. "Today we strike a blow for animal rights and against animal cruelty by renaming 'pets' to 'animal companions'" or "Never play the card 'sacrifice'" because that is so manipulative and sounds so negative, helpless and desperate. Instead of being "victims," ​​we pride ourselves on being "survivors." (Of course, when "victims" go, so do the perpetrators!) See also The Passive Voice Fallacy and The Scripted Message. This also applies to other forms of politicsTaalcheck,'For example, be carefulneverrefers to North Korea or ISIS/ISIL with their rather pompous proper names ("Democratic People's Republic of Korea" or "Islamic State"), or to the Syrian government as "Syrian government" (always "regime" or "dictatorship") ). Occasionally the fallacy of "political correctness" is confused with simple politeness, e.g. "I'm tired of the tyranny of political correctness in having to watch my words all the time - I want the freedom to speak my mind and to shout publicly (swear words here insert) whenever I feel like it!”

A counterbalance to this error is the error of waiting below.

See also non-recognition.

The Pollyanna Principle

Titel: „The Projection Bias“, „They're Just Like Us“, „Singing‘ Kumbaya“.

A traditional, often tragic, ethos error that consists of automatically (and erroneously) assuming that everyone else, in a given place, time, and circumstance, had the same (positive) desires, aspirations, interests, concerns, and ethics or essentially have. and moral code as "We do." This error practically, if not theoretically, negates both the reality of difference and man's ability to choose radical evil. Fx explains that "most of the Nazi stormtroopers wanted what we do, to live in peace and prosperity and have a good family life", although the reality was completely different. dr William Lorimer offers this explanation: "The projection bias is the flip side of the fallacy 'They are not like us' [Othering]. Projection bias (fallacy) is, “They're just people like me, so they must be motivated by the same things that motivate me.” For example, “I would never pull out a gun and shoot a cop if I wasn't convinced that he's trying to kill me; So Joe Smith must have really been in fear for his life when he shot a police officer.” I see the same misconception about Israel: “The people of Gaza just want to be left alone; So if Israel would just lift the blockade and allow Hamas to import whatever they want without restrictions, they would stop firing rockets at Israel.” that the people of Gaza, or at least their leaders, are motivated by a desire for peaceful coexistence. The humor lay in the absurdity of imagining "Stone Age figures" with the same concerns, values, and lifestyles as work-class white Americans in the mid-20th century. This is the opposite of the othering fallacy. (Note: The Pollyanna principle fallacy should not be confused with a psychological principle of the same name, which suggests that positive memories are usually retained more strongly than negative ones.)

The misconception about positive thinking

A wildly popular but misguided modern misconception of logos, that because we “think positively,” external, objective reality is somehow skewed in our favor even before we lift a finger to act. See also magical thinking. Note that this particular misunderstanding is often part of a much broader cohesive, somewhat sectarian ideology that cautions the practitioner against being aware of, or even acknowledging, the reality of evil or "negative" evidence or counterarguments to their arguments. positions. In the latter case, a rational discussion, argument or refutation is mostly pointless. See also willful ignorance.

After that argue

Also: "Post Hoc Propter Hoc;" 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc;' "Too Big Coincidence," "Clustering Illusion"): The classic paranoid fallacy of attributing imaginary causality to random chance and concluding that something happened near, simultaneously with, or immediately after something else that caused it first From the other. E.g. "AIDS first emerged as an epidemic at the same time that disco music was becoming popular - that's too much coincidence: it proves that disco caused AIDS!" Correlation does not equate to causation.

Pouten

Also: The silent treatment; nonviolent civil disobedience; Uncooperative

an often infantile argumentum ad baculum that arbitrarily breaks off or ends the dialogue before it is finished. The most benign nonviolent form of this fallacy is found in passive-aggressive tactics such as shutdowns, boycotts, lockouts, sit-ins, and strikes. Under President Barack Obama, the United States finally ended a fifty-year political feud with Cuba.

See also "No discussion" and "No confirmation".

The Procruste fallacy

Also: "Comply with standards", standardization, uniformity, Fordism

The modernist fallacy of wrongly and improperly applying the norms and requirements of standardized manufacturing. Quality control and rigid planning or military discipline for inherently different free people, their lives, education, conduct, dress and appearance. This misunderstanding often seems to stem from a ruler's pathological need to "order" his disturbingly free, chaotic, and disorderly universe by restricting the freedom of others and insisting on strict standardization, literacy, discipline, uniformity, and "objectivity." Judgment on all under their power. This misunderstanding explains in part why marching in straight lines, mass drills, goose-stepping, drum and bugle or flag corps, standing attention, saluting, uniforms, and standardized categorization are so typical of fascism, tyrannical regimes, and petty tyrants. and all around beautiful. Many thanks to the author Eimar O'Duffy for identifying this misunderstanding!

Prosopologist

Also: prosopography, recitation of the litany; 'Tell me their names?'; Read the scroll of the martyrs

An ancient fallacy of pathos and ethos to read aloud, sing, or write down a long list of names (most or all of which will be unfamiliar to the reader or audience) in public, sometimes in a negative sense, to reflect the seriousness of a past, to emphasize tragedy or mass sacrifice, sometimes in a positive sense, to emphasize the age-old historical continuity of a church, organization, or cause. Proper nouns can have an almost mystical power of persuasion, especially when they come from the same culture or language group as the audience. In some cases, those who use this fallacy in its contemporary form will defend it as an attempt to "personalize" an otherwise anonymous recent mass tragedy. This misconception was virtually unknown in secular American affairs until about 100 years ago, until the practice arose of listing the names of local World War I victims on community monuments across the country. That this is actually a misunderstanding is shown by the fact that the names of these ancient monuments are now only of importance to genealogists and specialist historians, similar to the names of the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington or the names of those who will die on September 9th. 11. Certainly for many more generations to come.

The red herring

Also: distraction

An irrelevant argument that attempts to mislead and distract an audience by raising an unrelated but emotionally charged topic. For example: "As for my numerous bankruptcies and recent allegations of corruption, let's be honest and say what really matters:Terrorism!Just Check out what happened in [place name] last week. Elect me and I will fight these terrorists around the world!' Also applies to raising unrelated topics as a false contradiction to the topic at hand, e.g. B. "You say 'Black Lives Matter', but I prefer to say 'Climate Change Matters'!" when the two statements are in no way contradictory, just competing for attention.

See also Availability Bias and Dog Whistle Policy.

Reduction to Hitler

Also: ad Hitler

A highly problematic contemporary historical revisionist claim that the argument "That is exactly what Hitler said (or would have said or done)" is a fallacy, an example of the ad hominem argument and/or guilt by association. Whether or not the Reductio ad Hitlerum can be regarded as an actual fallacy seems to depend essentially on one's personal view of Hitler and the seriousness of his crimes.

reductionism

Also: oversimplification, sloganeering

The fallacy of misleading an audience by providing simple answers or slogans on bumper stickers in response to complex questions, especially when addressing a less educated or inexperienced audience. For example: 'If the glove doesn't fit, vote for acquittal' or 'Vote for Snith.' It will bring back jobs!' to make stubborn problems calculable, e.g. the well-known humorous suggestion "Let's first assume that the cow is a sphere!".

See also Common Truth Fallacies and Dog Whistles Guidelines.

enriching

Also: wrong map for the area:

The age-old misconception of treating imaginary intellectual categories, schemes, or names as actual, material "things." (e.g. “The war on terror is just another chapter in the eternal life and death struggle between freedom and absolute evil!”)

Sometimes too 'essentialization'von'Hypostatisierend.'

The romantic rebel

Also: Truthdig/Truthout Fallacy;the brave heretic; Conspiracy theories; the iconoclastic fallacy

The modern-day fallacy of claiming truth or validity for one's position solely or primarily because of an alleged heroic defiance of the prevailing "orthodoxy," the current Standard Model, conventional wisdom, or political correctness, or whatever the current trend; a corrupt argument of ethos. Eg: "The scientific establishment back then thought the world was flat until Columbus proved them wrong!" Now they want us to believe that pure water is nothing but H²Oh. will you believe them The government is desperate to suppress the truth that our public drinking water supply does indeed contain nitrogen and causes congenital vampirism! And what about Area 51? do you care Or are you just a kiss to the corrupt scientific establishment?

The opposite of the bandwagon fallacy.

The Save the Children approach

Also: humanitarian crisis

A cruel and cynical fallacy propelled by the modern media, an example of the misguided call for pity that wins public support for intervening in someone else's crisis in a distant land by repeating in gross detail the extreme (real) Plight of innocent, defenseless youth places children (sometimes even their pets!) on “our” side, conveniently ignoring the reality that innocent children on all sides typically suffer most in war, conflict, famine, or crisis. Recent examples (2017) include the so-called "Rohingya" in Myanmar/Burma (ignoring numerous other ethnic groups who continue to suffer from hunger and conflict in the impoverished country), children in rebel-held areas of Syria (areas controlled by the rebels).Onsrebels, not from the Syrian government or Islamic State rebels) and children from Mediterranean boats (easy children from the Middle East, Afghanistan and North Africa, butnotdark, African-biased children from sub-Saharan Africa, children who seem to be viewed as far less pitiable by the media). Researcher Glen Greenwald points out that a cynically important part of this tactic is hiding children and adults who are victims of one's own violence while hiding the tragic, blood-soaked images of children coming from "the other side." murdered every tear they can get. to generate. as causus belli [an overblown excuse for war, conflict, or American/Western intervention].

scapegoat

Also: blame

The age-old misconception that whenever something goes wrong, it always goes wrongatnot blaming anyone but yourself. While this misconception is sometimes a practical denial of arbitrariness, or arbitrariness itself, more often today it's a purely insurance-driven business decision ("I don't care if it."Waran accident! Someone with big pockets will pay for this!'), although naming a scapegoat is often just a cynical ploy to shield those really responsible from finger pointing. The term "scapegoat" is also used to refer to the tactic of collectively blaming marginalized or despised "others", e.g. “Blame the Jews!” A particularly corrupt and cynical example of scapegoating is the fallacy ofBlame the victimwhere one falsely blames the victim for one's bad or questionable deeds, for example: "If you bat an eyelid, I must kill you and you will be blamed!" we shut down the government and it's all your fault!"

See also the affective fallacy.

scaremongering

Also: appeal to fear; Paranoia; bogeyman error; Shock Doctrine [ShockDoc]; Rally “Around the Flag; Rally “All about the President”.

A “Playing on Emotions” series, a corrupt pathos argument that exploits acaused or intentionally caused crisis and the concomitant public shock, panic,and chaos to impose an argument, action, or solution that, on careful consideration, would be clearly unacceptable. For example: “If you don't shut up and do as I say, we're all going to die!” In this moment of crisis, we don't have the luxury of criticizing or reconsidering my choices when our lives and freedoms are at risk are at stake! Instead, we must be united as one!' Or, in the words (2017) of former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 'This is about America's security!' discussed.Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalismand her (2017)No is not enough: Resist Trump's shock policies and win the world we need. See also The Shopping Hungry Fallacy, Dog-Whistle Politics, "We Must Do Something!" and The Worst CaseMisunderstanding.

"points"

Also: Moving the Ball Around the Field, Sports World Fallacy; "Hello sports fans!"

An example of a false analogy is the common modern-day misconception that imagery of sports, games, hunting, or other leisure activities is inappropriately and often offensively applied to unrelated areas of life, such as war or intimacy. E.g. "No, I haven't scored with Francis yet, but I managed to get to third base last night!" or "We really need to put our game in Kim's half if we're ever going to score against North Korea." achieve.” This misconception is almost always steeped in testosterone and machismo. A related misunderstanding is thatEven the score(aka Getting Even) exacted revenge as if life were some kind of sports game where points are at stake. Counterarguments to the "scoring" misconception often fall on deaf ears as the sole purpose of gaming is "to get results", isn't it?

The script message

Also: discussion points

A modern misconception associated with the big lie technique, in which a politician or public figure strictly limits their statements on a given subject to the repetition of carefully crafted, often exaggerated or empty phrases aimed at gaining maximum acceptance or get the desired reaction from the audience. See also dog whistle politics and political correctness above.

The opposite of this misconception is “waiting”.

Send the wrong message

A dangerous misconception of logos that attacks a particular statement, argument, or action, however good, true, or necessary, because it "sends the wrong message." In fact, those who use this fallacy openly admit deceit and admit that the truth will destroy the fragile web of illusions they have purposely created from their lies. For example: "Actually, we have no idea how to deal with this crisis, but if we admit it publicly, we send the wrong message."

See also Mala Fides.

reversal of the burden of proof

A classic logo fallacy in which an opponent is asked to refute a claim rather than asking the person making the claim to defend their own argument. For example: "These days, there are aliens disguised as real people all over us, even here on campus!" I challenge you to prove that's not the case! To see? You can't do that! you admit it! That means what I'm saying must be true. You are most likely one of them since you look so weak to the aliens!' theoretically "possible" and then declares the claim "proven" without any evidence to the contrary. E.g. 'Did you see?give upthe massive unnoticed electoral fraudIsThis is indeed possible under our current system and could have happened in this country, at least in theory, and you cannot provide the tiniest bit of evidence that it actually didn't happen! Haha! I drop my case.'

See also argument from ignorance.

The misconception about shopping hunger: A misconception of pathos, a variety of games involving emotions and sometimes frightening tactics, making stupid but important decisions (or being encouraged, manipulated or forced to make "free" public or private decisions that one might later... regretted but difficult to undo). ) “in the heat of the moment” under the influence of strong emotions (hunger, fear, lust, anger, sadness, regret, fatigue, even joy, love or happiness). E.g. Trevor Noah (2016), host of the Daily Show on US television, attributes public approval of the draconian measures of the Patriot Act and the creation of the US Department of Homeland Security to America's "shopping hunger" immediately after 9/11. See also scaremongering; “We have to do thatSomething;' and the big 'but' fallacy.

The Fallacy of the Silent Majority

Some of the arguments from ignorance, that fallacy famously uttered by disgraced US President Richard Nixon, claim to have special knowledge of a hidden “silent majority” of voters (or the general public) who have an otherwise unpopular vote Leaders back and support him/their policies, contrary to the repeated results of polls, polls and referendums. In extreme cases, the leader allows himself the title "voice of the voiceless.'

The Fool's Fallacy

Also: the fallacy of the “good fool”

A corrupt misconception of logos described in an undated quote by science writer Isaac Asimov: "The misconception that democracy means 'My ignorance is as good as your knowledge.'" The name of this misconception comes from Walter M. Miller Jr . .'s classic post-apocalyptic novel (1960), A Canticle for Leibowitz, in which in the centuries following a nuclear holocaust knowledge and erudition are so despised that "good simpleton" becomes the standard form of interpersonal greeting, this fallacy is masterfully portrayed in the Person as the title character in the 1994 Hollywood film Forrest Gump. It is widely argued that the misunderstanding had a lot to do with the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election, see also Just' Plain Folks and Plain Truth Misconception US President Barrack Obama observed the opposite (2016): “In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It's not cool not knowing what you're talking about. Accuracy. You just don't know what you're talking about.” The term “Simpleton's fallacy” is also used to refer to a fallacious reasoning technique in which ignorance is feigned in order to get the opponent to admit, explain, or deny something . Explain a lot of things he or she would rather not discuss. For example: "I see here that you have already been convicted of something called 'criminal sodomy.' In simple terms, explain to the jury exactly what you did to get convicted of this crime.”

See also Argument from Ignorance and The Third Person Effect.

The slippery slope

Also: the domino theory

The common misconception that "one thing leads to another". E.g. "If you two start having coffee together, one thing will lead to another and before you know it you will be pregnant and spend your whole life in the projects", or "If we close Gitmo, one thing will lead to another, and before that.” You know it: At 10:30 am Sunday morning, armed terrorists wearing suicide belts will saunter through our church doors, proud as you may be. service here in Garfield, Kansas!'

The Snow Trail

Also: errors according to Verbosius; information distortion

A fallacy of logos: “Prove” a claim by overwhelming (“snowing”) an audience with mountains of true but marginally relevant documents, charts, words, facts, figures, information, and statistics that look utterly impressive to the They are not meant to be public but are expected to understand or judge correctly. This is a corrupt argument by Logos.

See also "Lies with Statistics". The opposite of this error is the general error of truth.

The honor of the soldiers

The age-old misconception that anyone who wore a uniform, fought hard and obeyed orders deserved special honor or glory or even "heroes," whether fighting for freedom or defending slavery, under Grant or Lee, Hitler, Stalin, Eisenhower marched or McArthur fought to defend their homes, fought for oil or for empire expansion or even fought and killed American soldiers! A corrupt argument from the ethos (that of a soldier) closely linked to the "finish the job" fallacy ("Of course he died for a lie, but he deserves credit for following orders and faithfully doing his job to the end End done!") ). See also "All Heroes". This misunderstanding was acknowledged and resolutely refuted at the Nuremberg trials after World War II, but is still strong today. See also "Blind Loyalty". It's related to thatMisunderstanding of the state actorthat those who fight and die for their country (America, Russia, Iran, the Third Reich, etc.) deserve honor, or at least are forgivable, while those who fight for a non-state actor (armed abolitionists, guerrillas, freedom). fighters, jihadists, mujahideen) are not and will not remain "terrorists" no matter how noble or vicious their cause, until they win andArethe recognized state or is later taken over by a state.

The fallacy of the standard version

The ancient misconception of taking a discursive argument ad baculum, a "standard translation" or "authorized version" of an ancient or sacred text and arbitrarily declaring it "correct" and "authoritative", thereby necessarily obliterating much of the poetry and underlying meaning destroys the original but conveniently declines any further discussion of the meaning of the original text, e.g. Vulgate or the King James Version. The easily demonstrable fact that the translation (more than three or four words) is neither consistent nor reversible (i.e., never quite the same comes back when translated back from another language) is a lie to any attempt to turn human language into an exact science to translate. Islam clearly acknowledges this misunderstanding when it calls any attempt to translate the holy text of the Holy Qur'an from the original Arabic a "paraphrasing" at best. One facet of this fallacy is the Argumentum ad Mysteriam above. An extension of the standard version fallacy is the monolingual fallacy, at the academic level the fallacy of unknowingly (as a monolingual person) assuming that transparent, in-depth translation between languages ​​is the norm, if not even possible at all, so conveniently and incorrectly ignoring translation issues , if you carefully read translated literature or scientific texts and theories. At a broader level, the Monolingual Fallacy allows monolinguals to happily require visitors, migrants, refugees, and newcomers to study English either prior to their arrival or overnight after their arrival in the United States, without making such demands on themselves, when they leave for Asia. Europe, Latin America or even French speaking areas of Canada. Not infrequently, this misunderstanding leads to gross racism or ethnic discrimination, e.g. the demagogy of the warning: "Here Spanish is spoken on the main street and there are taco trucks on every corner!"

See also Othering and Dog Whistle Policy.

Starpower

Also: testimony, questionable authority, abuse of authority, falacia ad vericundiam; Eminence based practice

In academia and medicine, it is a perverted ethos argument in which arguments, positions, and issues in professional discourse gain fame and validity, or are condemned to obscurity, solely through one of the ruling “stars” or “prominent journals” of the profession or discipline at the moment. E.g.: "Foster's interpretation of network theory was thoroughly criticized last week!". This week everyone's focus is on Safe Spaces and Pierce's Theory of Microaggression. Join us.” (See also Bandwagon.) Same goes for an obsession with Impact Factors magazine. At a more general level, this misunderstanding also refers to a falsified ethos argument, where public support for a position or product is justified by a well-known or respected figure (e.g. a star athlete or entertainer) who is not an expert and who can get paid well to get the support (e.g., “Olympic gold-medal pole vaulter Fulano de Tal uses Quick Flush Internet — right?” or “My favorite rock star warns vaccines are spreading pole vaulting, so I don’t vaccinate. "MinimumChildren!'). Includes other false, nonsensical, or paid methods of associating oneself, one's product, or position with the ethos of a celebrity or event (e.g., "Try Salsa Cabria, the official Winter Olympics taco sauce!" ). This misunderstanding also appliesMisuse of Quotations(also "The Devil Quoting Scripture"), including quotations that are out of context or contrary to the clear intent of the original speaker or writer. For example, racists who call the priest Dr. The proclamations of Martin Luther King Jr. in favor of racial equality against contemporary activists and movements for racial equality.

From stroma

Title: "The Straw Person" "The Straw Figure"

The fallacy of constructing a false, weak, extreme, or ridiculous parody of an opponent's argument and then using a rhetorical wave of the hand to nullify it or reduce it to absurdity. For example, vegetarians say animals have feelings like you and me. Have you ever seen a cow laugh at a Shakespearean comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!' Or, "Proponents hate babies and want to kill them!" Or, "Animators hate women and want them to live their lives barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove!" A common example of this fallacy is the emphasis on the most absurd, insulting, most silly or violent examples in a mass movement or demonstration, e.g. B. "puncher" for environmentalists, "bra burner" for feminists, or "rioters" when a dozen violent lunatics join in a peaceful, disciplined demonstration of thousands or tens of thousands, and then misrepresent these extreme examples as typical of the whole Move in to condemn it with a wave of your hand.

See also Olfactory Rhetoric.

Tabuett

Also: dogmatism

The age-old misconception of unilaterally declaring certain “fundamental” arguments, assumptions, dogmas, positions, or actions “sacred” and non-negotiable, or arbitrarily “taking off the table” certain emotional tones, logical positions, doctrines, or options in advance. (e.g. "No, let'sNee"Don't discuss my sexuality," "Don't participate in my drinking," or "Before we begin, you should know that I will not allow you to play the race card or that you will attack my arguments by asserting : "That's it." Exactly what Hitler would say!) Also applies to outright rejection or rejection of certain arguments, facts and evidence (or even experience!) because they are said to be "against the Bible" or some other holy dogma (see also a priori argument). Misunderstandings occasionally degenerate into a separate, distracting argument over who should define the parameters, tones, dogmas, and taboos of the main argument, although at this point reasoned discourse usually breaks down and the whole thing becomes mere argumentum ad baculum

See also MYOB, Tone Policing and Calling 'Cards'.

They're all bad guys: The common modern-day misconception of refusing to engage in public politics because “all” politicians are said to be corrupt, while ignoring the fact that when it is so in a democratic country, it is right , because decent people like you and me refuse to get involved, which by default leaves the field open for "bad guys". An example of circular reasoning. Related to this misunderstanding is:They are all biased', the very common modern day cynical fallacy of ignoring the news and news media because no one is telling the 'objective truth' and everyone is pushing an 'agenda'. This essentially true observation logically requires that the public regularly watch or read various media sources to get some approximation of reality, but for many younger people today (2017) in practice it means: “Ignore news, news media and public affairs completely and instead be.” Look for something funny, exciting, or personally interestingTransporterThe ominous implication for democracy is: "Mind your own business and leave all 'big' matters to your superiors, those whose job it is to deal with these matters and who are well paid to do so."

See also third-person effect and willful ignorance.

The “Third Person Effect”

Also: "Smart!" and "They're All Liars"

An example of the fallacy of willful ignorance, the arch-cynical postmodern fallacy of consciously excluding or ignoring media informationFirstby choosing to remain ignorant rather than "listening to the lies" of the mainstream media, the President, the "medical establishment", professionals, professors, doctors and the "academic elite" or any other authority or source of information , even when dealing with pressing issues (e.g. the need for vaccination) when these sources are otherwise publicly viewed as generally reliable or relatively credible.That's what researchers at Drexel University say(2017), “The third-person effect … suggests that individuals perceive a mass media message as affecting others more than they do themselves.” This perception tends to contradict the message's intended call-to-action. Essentially, this suggests that over time, people became aware that some of the mainstream media's messages were aimed at manipulating them – so that the messages became less and less effective.” This misunderstanding seems the opposite and an overreaction to the being big lie technique.

See also Willful Ignorance, The Fool's Error, and Trust Your Feelings.

The "thousand flowers" fallacy

Also: "Take names and kick ass."

A sophisticated, modern "argumentum ad baculum" where free and open discussion and "brainstorming" are temporarily allowed and encouraged (even).required) within an organization or a country, not primarily to hear and consider opposing viewpoints, but rather to “sort out”, identify and later punish, dismiss or liquidate. The name dates back to the Thousand Flowers period in Chinese history, when communist leader Mao Tse Tung used this policy to deadly effect.

Throwing good money after bad money

(Also: “sunk cost fallacy”)

In his excellent bookLogically misleading(2015), author Bo Bennett describes this misconception as: "Justifying further investment on the basis that the funds already invested would otherwise be wasted, without considering the overall losses associated with the additional investment." In other words, additional money too risk to "bail out" a previously lost investment, while ignoring the old axiom that "doing the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity." E.g. "I can't stop betting."not,because I already bet and lost the rent and I have to win it back or my wife will kill me when I get home!'

See also argument from inertia.

TINA(There is no alternative)

Also: the "love it or leave it" fallacy; "Overcome it", "Take it up", "It is what it is", "Actions/decisions have consequences" or "Fait Accompli": A common contemporary extension of the either-or fallacy involving someone in power B. nullifies critical thinking by announcing that there is no realistic alternative to a particular position, status, or action, by arbitrarily limiting all other options, or by announcing that a decision has been made and any further discussion Depicting disobedience, infidelity, betrayal, disobedience, or simply wasting time when there is work to be done. (See also "Taboo"; "Finish the job.") TINA is usually a pure power play, a slightly more sophisticated take on argumentum ad baculum.

See also closure complaint.

Tonpoliti

A corrupt argument of pathos and performance, The fallacy of judging the validity of an argument primarily by its emotional tone, while ignoring the reality that a valid fact or argument remains valid whether it is calm and deliberate, or in a "shrill" or even "hysterical" tone, whether carefully written and published in professional, academic language in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, or shouted through a bullhorn and peppered with vulgarity. Conversely, an extremely urgent emotional matter is still urgent even when argued coolly and rationally. This fallacy creates a false dichotomy between reason and emotion, and implicitly favors those who are not personally or emotionally involved in an argument, for example, "I know you're upset, but I don't want to discuss it with you in front of you." " I calmed down. ,” or “I would believe what you wrote if you hadn't used exclamation marks a lot growing up.” Or alternatively, “You seem to take your partner's death far too lightly.” You are arrested for murder. You have the right to remain silent…” Sound surveillance is widespread in contemporary power discourses, particularly in response to discourses of protest, and is occasionally used in sexist ways, such as to remain silent. The accusation of "shrillness" is almost always leveled against women, never against men.

See also F-bomb.

hand over

Also: name dropping

A falsified ethos argument that falsely associates a famous or notable person, place, or thing with an unrelated statement or position (e.g., posting a picture of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in an ad for Mattresses by (by Genghis Khan) , a Mongolian who hated Chinese as a Chinese restaurant name, or used the Texan flag to sell more cars or pickups in Texas that were made in Detroit, Kansas City or Korea This misunderstanding is widespread in contemporary scholarship as a form of using a plethora of scientific-looking citations from respected authorities to lend a false seriousness to an otherwise bizarre idea or text.

See also Star Power.

trust your instincts

Also: trust your heart; Trust your instincts; Trust your intuition; Trust your instincts; Emotional Thinking): A corrupt argument stemming from pathos, the old misconception of relying primarily on “gut feelings” rather than reason or evidence when making decisions. AOhio State University Research 2017unsurprisingly, finds that people who “trust their gut” are significantly more susceptible to falling for “fake news”, false conspiracy theories, scams and scams than those who insist on hard evidence or logic.

See also intentional ignorance, the affective fallacy, and the third-person effect.

You too

Also: "You too!"; Also, two mistakes make one right

A falsified argument of ethos, the fallacy of defending a shaky or wrong position or excusing one's bad deed by pointing out that the opponent's deeds, ideology or personal character are also questionable or perhaps even worse than one's own are.

Example: "Of course we have tortured prisoners and killed children with drones, but we don't cut off their heads like they do!" Or: "You can't stand there and accuse me of corruption!" They are all in politics and know what we must do to be re-elected!' or defend the evil deeds of others because I/we have done the same thing or worse. In response to the claim that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is a "murderer", US President Donald Trump (2/2017) said in an interview: "There are many murderers." We have many murderers. What do you think our country is so innocent?'

This fallacy is related to the Red Herring and ad hominem arguments.

Two-way misunderstanding

Also: Learn more about the controversy

The presentation of an issue that makes it appear as if it has two sides of equal or equal importance, when in fact a consensus or much stronger argument supports only one side. Also called "false balance" or "false equivalence". (Thanks toteach tolerancefor this definition!)

Example: "Scientists assume that the earth is spherical, but there are always two sides to every argument: others believe the earth is flat and sits on the back of a giant tortoise, and a truly balanced presentation of the problem requires both to be taught." will.” Statements made without bias or unjustified favoritism of one party over the other.”

Two truths

Also: compartmentalization; epistemic closed systems; alternate truth

A highly corrupt and dangerous misunderstanding of logos and ethos, first formally described in the Middle Ages but still widely held, claiming that a "truth" in a given setting (e.g. academia, the workplace or in school) and at the same time there is another, formally contradictory, but equally true "truth" in a different epistemic system, context, environment, intended target group or community of conversation (e.g. in one's own religion or homeland). This can lead to a situation of stable cognitive dissonance where, as Dr. Carter T. Butts describes it (2016): "I know, but I don't think so" makes rational discussion difficult, painful, or impossible. This misunderstanding also describes the discourse of politicians who cynically proclaim one “truth” as mere “campaign rhetoric” used “to mobilize the grassroots” or “for domestic consumption only” and an entirely different and contradictory “truth” for more general or practical purposes when you first become a member.

See also disciplinary shadow; alternate truth.

Blossoms

Also: let off steam; Loose lips

In the vent fallacy, a person argues that their words are or should be exempt from criticism or consequence because they "only vented," even though that very admission implies that the one who "vented" was free after all. to express his true, honest and uncensored opinion on the matter at hand. The same fallacy applies to the downplaying, denial of meaning, or excuse for other forms of overt, careless, or unrestrained insults, such as simply "Conversation in the dressing room,''alpha male language"Or nothing but sweet, sweet, maybe even sexy"Bad-Boy-Talk.'

Contrasted with this fallacy are the fallacies of political correctness and the message written above.

See also the affective fallacy.

meeting point

The age-old Venue fallacy, a corrupt Kairos argument, falsely and arbitrarily negates an otherwise valid argument or piece of evidence because it is allegedly presented in the wrong place, at the wrong time, or in an inappropriate court, media, or forum. PhD student Amanda Thran: “Personally, I'm often told that Facebook, Twitter, etc. are 'not the right forums' to discuss politically and socially sensitive issues.” … Similarly, I've also encountered the following argument: “Facebook , which is used to share wedding, baby and pet photos, is an inappropriate place for political discourse; People don't want to be burdened with that when they sign up.” In my experience, this mindset is most often used (and abused) to end a conversation when you feel the person is losing track. Ironically, I saw it being used when the argument had already taken place on the platform [in] an already lengthy discussion.”

See also disciplinary shadow.

We have to do itSomething

Also: the placebo effect; political theater; security theater; We need to send a message

The dangerous contemporary misconception that when "people are scared/people are angry/people are tired/people are hurt/people want change" something must be donesomething, immediately, without pausing and asking “What?” or “Why?” even if what is being done is an overreaction, a totally ineffective ruse, an ineffective placebo, or actually only makes the situation worse, rather than “just there to sit and do nothing". (For example: “Getting airline passengers to bring ham sandwiches on planes and making parents remove their newborns' tiny pink booties is unlikely to deter would-be terrorists, but people are scared, and we should be.somethingto respond to this crisis!”) This is a strongly pathetic argument.

They are also "Scare Tactic" and "The Big "But" Fallacy".

Where there is smoke there is fire

Also: draw the conclusion; Come to a conclusion

The dangerous fallacy of unknowingly coming to a conclusion and/or acting without sufficient evidence.

Example: "Captain! The man sitting next to me on the bus is black and reading a book in a strange language full of accent marks, strange scrawls above the "N" and upside down question marks. It must be Arabic! Get him off the plane before he sends us all to Kingdom Come!'

A variant of the "just in case" fallacy.

The opposite of this misunderstanding is "analysis paralysis".

The wisdom of the crowds

Also: The magic of the market; Wikipedia misunderstanding; crowd sourced

A common modern day misconception that individuals may be wrong but the "crowd" or "the market" is infallible, ignoring historical examples such as witch burnings, lynchings and the 2008 market crash. This misconception is why most US colleges and universities currently (2017) prohibit students from using Wikipedia as a reputable reference source.

The worst misunderstanding

Also: "Just in case;" "We can't afford to take chances." "Very careful"; 'Prevention is better than cure;' "Better safe than sorry."): A pessimistic fallacy in which reasoning is based on an unlikely, far-fetched, or even entirely imaginary worst-case scenario rather than reality. This plays on pathos (fear) rather than reason and is often politically motivated

Example: "What if armed terrorists attacked your grain elevator at dawn tomorrow morning?" Are you ready to fight back? Stock up on your shotguns and ammo today, just in case!'

The opposite of this is positive fallacy.

See also scaremongering.

The worst negates the bad

Also, be thankful for what you have

The extremely common modern logical misconception that an objectively bad situation is somehow not that bad just because it could have been a lot worse, or because someone somewhere is worse off. For example, "I cried because I had no shoes until I saw someone who had no feet." Or, "You're protesting because you only make $7.25 an hour?" You might as well be standing on the street ! I happen to know that there are people in Uttar Pradesh who will do the same job as you for a tenth of your work and are pathetically lucky to have a job. You have to shut up, put down the strike board, get back to work for what I'm willing to pay you, and thank me every day for giving you a job!'

zero tolerance

Also: risk-free bias, broken windows, police, disproportionate response; Even one is too many; Exemplary Punishment; Jew clean

Ignore the current misconception of declaring a "state of emergency," promising justice and due process, and expending unlimited resources (and sometimes unlimited brutality) to the elimination of a limited, insignificant, or even non-existent problem. E.g. “I just read about a real case of cannibalism somewhere in this country. It's abominable and even a single case is way, way too many! We need a federal cannibalism task force with a $1 million budget and offices in every state, a national SCAN program in every public school (Stop Cannibalism in America Now!), and an automatic double death penalty for cannibals, with others Words: Zero tolerance for cannibalism in this country!' This is a corrupt and cynical argument of pathos that is almost always politically motivated, a particularly sinister twist on dog-whistle politics and the "we must do something" fallacy.

See also Playing with Emotions, Red Herring and also Big Lie Technique.

OW 07/06 courtesy of the late Susan Spence. Last revised 01/18, special thanks to Business Insider, Teaching Tolerance and Vox.comBradley Steffens, to Jackson Katz, Brian Resnick, Glen Greenwald, Lara Bhasin, Danelle M. Pecht, Marc Lawson, Eimar O'Duffy and Mike Caetano, to Drs. William Lorimer, Drs. Carter T Butts, Ph.D. Bo Bennett, Myron Peto, Joel Sax, Thomas Persing, Amanda Thran and everyone else who suggested corrections, additions and clarifications.

Open course materials | OCW |This work is dedicated to the public domain.