LOGICAL FALLACIES—List Of
Go To Extended List with Description of Each Logical Fallacy
Section
I--Completely Irrational Fallacies For Which No Evidence Exists:
This is the category of fallacies frequently known as “non-sequiters”, which is simply the Latin phrase for “it does not follow.” These are fallacies that are based purely on rules of logic, prior to examining any evidence, in which the conclusion logically does not follow from the premise.
1. CONTRADICTORY FALLACY
2. CATEGORICAL FALLACY
3. The SUBJECTIVE FALLACY
4. ASSERTUM NON EST DEMONSTRATUM--“To assert is not to demonstrate”.
5. The Cynicism Fallacy (A Contradictory Fallacy)
6. Secularist Fallacy (A Contradictory Fallacy)
7. AD HOMINEM—Latin for “To the man.”
a. Guilt by Association
b. Guilt by Exaggeration
8. STRAW MAN
9. Reducto Absurdem (form of straw man)
10. The Hypocritical Fallacy (A Straw Man Fallacy)
11. CIRCULAR REASONING or “Begging The Question”
12. SELF-REFUTING ASSERTIONS
13. THE INCONSEQUENTIAL FALLACY (A Contradictory Fallacy)
14. BULVERISM (An Ad Hominem Argument)
Section
II--FALLACIES OF MISHANDLING THE EVIDENCE:
15. THE RATIONALISTIC FALLACY
16. THE HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBILITY FALLACY
17. REDUCTIONISTIC FALLACY
18. Universal Bias Fallacy
19. FALSE DILEMNA
EVIDENTIAL CATEGORICAL FALLACIES
20. OVER-GENERALIZATION
21. ANECDOTAL FALLACY
22. PROVINCIAL OR EGOISTIC FALLACY
23. BIASED SELECTION
24. ARGUMENT OF THE BEARD
25. FALSE ANALOGY FALLACY
B. Incongruous Analogy Fallacy
26. OBJECTIVITY FALLACY
CATEGORICAL FALLACIES OF CAUSATION
27. CORRELATIONAL FALLACY
28. NECESSARY CAUSE FALLACY
29. MENTOR FALLACY
30. POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
31. ANTE HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
32. SEQUENCING FALLACY
33. GROUNDS-CONSEQUENT FALLACY
34. OVERSIMPLIFICATION
Section
III—AXIOLOGICAL FALLACIES:
35. VALUING FALLACY
36. MOB RULE FALLACY
37. MORAL RELATIVISM FALLACY
38. AMORAL FALLACY
39. MORAL NEUTRALITY FALLACY
40. GENETIC FALLACY
41. PROPHETIC FALLACY
Chapter
Section IV--FALLACIES OF THE HEART:
42. MYOPIC FALLACY
43. BOTH WAYS FALLACY
44. FALSE AUTHORITY
45. PIETISTIC FALLACY
46. UTOPIAN FALLACY
47. BENEVOLENT FALLACY
48. LEGISLATING MORALITY FALLACY
49. NIHILISTIC FALLACY
Section
V--THE ULTIMATE FALLACY (HISTORICAL FALLACIES)
50. THE ANTI-HISTORICAL FALLACY
51. THE HISTORICAL AMBIGUITY FALLACY
52. CHRONOLOGICAL FALLACY
LOGICAL FALLACIES with Definitions
Section
I--Completely Irrational Fallacies For Which No Evidence Exists:
This is the category of fallacies frequently known as “non-sequiters”, which is simply the Latin phrase for “it does not follow.” These are fallacies that are based purely on rules of logic, prior to examining any evidence, in which the conclusion logically does not follow from the premise.
2. CATEGORICAL FALLACY--This fallacy is to place some concept, idea, or entity a into some category, set, or group to which it could truthfully belong only if it were non-a. It is to believe that some a can belong to a set composed only of members of non-a.
3. The SUBJECTIVE FALLACY—This is a categorical fallacy in which one fails to make a distinction between the category of things that are true and the category of things which he believes or feels is true. Though a cannot be both true and false, a can be false at the same time that I believe or feel that a is true. For instance, look at two very different truth assertions:
“a exists” is an assertion about some truth that has nothing to do with me. It is either true or false regardless of whether I am aware of a--or even whether or not I exist (except in the case that “a” refers to me).
On the other hand, “I believe (or ‘know’ or ‘feel’) that a exists” is an assertion about my personal mental or emotional state, the truth of which lies within me, independent of whether or not some a actually does exist. This last statement is true merely if I believe it is true—even if I were the only entity that exists.
The earth can be round while I believe or feel that it is non-round (or flat). Platypi can exist though all of Europe believes and feels with certainty in their hearts that platypi do not exist.
My feelings or beliefs tell you something about me, but they tell you nothing about anything else or anyone else in the real world.
However, those who fall into the subjective fallacy, also often fall into our next fallacy.
4. ASSERTUM NON EST DEMONSTRATUM--“To assert is not to demonstrate”. This fallacy is to confuse the category of things that are true with the category of things that one states or claims are true. “Assertum non est demonstratum” is to believe that to state a belief, or to state it repeatedly, vigorously, or sincerely is somehow to demonstrate or to substantiate the veracity of that belief.
5. The Cynicism Fallacy (A Contradictory Fallacy)--This fallacy is to believe that to assert a is to be biased, but that to assert non-a is to be objective and non-biased, or that to believe “a is true” is biased, but to believe that “a is not true” is to be non-biased. Of course, to state a positive and to state a negative are equally truth assertions that must be tested by reason and evidence.
An amplified and common expression of this fallacy is to believe that to have a predisposition to disbelieve is somehow more objective, more intelligent, or less gullible than is a predisposition to believe.
Cynics, if consistent, therefore would have us believe that the flat earth society manifests wisdom in it’s predisposition to disbelieve the evidence about the nature of the earth and the solar system. Of course, the truth is that the unbiased position is to go with logic and the evidence in whatever direction they may point.
6. Secularist Fallacy (A Contradictory Fallacy)—This is one expression of the Cynicism Fallacy. This fallacy is to believe that to assert “God exists” is to be biased, but that to assert “God does not exist” is to be objective and non-biased, or that to believe “Christ is true” is biased, but to believe that “Christ is not true” is to be non-biased.
An amplified and common expression of this fallacy is to believe that to have a predisposition to disbelieve religious claims is somehow more objective, more intelligent, or less gullible than is a predisposition to believe religious claims.
Of course, once again the truth--in the area of religion as much as in any other area--is that the unbiased position is to go with logic and the evidence in whatever direction they may point.
7. AD HOMINEM—Latin for “To the man.” This fallacy is to attempt to refute an assertion or belief by attacking some characteristic or quality of its adherent rather than attacking the reasons and evidence supporting that belief. Just because a resident of an insane asylum tells you that it is raining does not mean that you might not need your umbrella. Clearly, what matters in a truth assertion is not the person making the assertion but the evidence for and against the assertion.
a. Guilt by Association—This fallacy is to refute a position by charging that it(s) advocates have an association with some evil person(s) or entities.
This takes too forms. One is to point out such a relationship that an advocate in fact does have. Of course, the fact one has a relationship does not in any way impugn the idea one is advocating which should be judged on its own merits. However, once an idea has been shown by the evidence to be false or doubtful, it is then legitimate to hypothesize that the reason he argued for that false idea was because he was influenced by some relationship.
The second form this fallacy takes is to associate some trait of an opponent such as her character or judgment with some notorious person such as Hitler. This of course in no way impugns the idea being argued.
b. Guilt by Exaggeration—This is the “guilt by association” in regard to ideas rather than persons. In that sense, it is not really an Ad Hominem argument, but rather an “as thesis” argument. However, we place it here--even though it could be placed in several of our categories such as Over Generalization—because it is a corollary of Guilt by Association. In this fallacy, an idea is besmirched by associating it with clearly false, evil, or ridiculous ideas.
This is usually done by including the idea being debated in a list of clearly false ideas, thereby implying that the argued assertion is equally false (or disreputable). This is similar to # 25B—the Incongruous Analogy Fallacy--in which it is implied that because the idea under discussion and a disreputable idea have some common facet(s), they therefore are equally false or noxious.
8. STRAW MAN--This fallacy is to argue against a caricature of a position or a silly or disgusting distortion of a position rather than argue against the evidence for the position. With a little imagination, any position can be twisted into a silly or bizarre statement or argument. But to treat that distortion as if it is the original assertion is dishonest.
9. Reducto Absurdem (form of straw man)--This fallacy is to refute a position by carrying the position out to an absurd extreme and then to mock the position as if it were the same as this extreme caricature. “If water is such a safe product, let’s see you drink this 50 gallons of water right now!” “If the pen is greater than the sword, let’s have a duel right now, me using this rapier and you using your bic.”
10. The Hypocritical Fallacy (A Straw Man Fallacy)--This fallacy is to argue against an idea or position by attacking its advocate(s) for not perfectly living up to their own ideals. This fallacy is a categorical fallacy in that it confuses hypocrisy with imperfection; that is that it confuses hypocrisy, which is to pretend to have a set of values or ideals that one does not truly care about, with imperfection, which is to have a set of ideals that are so lofty that one strives but fails to perfectly attain them.
11. CIRCULAR REASONING or “Begging The Question”—This fallacy is to base an argument for the truthfulness of an assertion on the assumption that the assertion is true. For instance:
Truth assertion—“I am the world’s greatest chef!”
Supporting evidence—“Only insane persons deny that I am the greatest chef in the world.”
Assumption re the evidence—“My critics are clearly insane—if not, they would know that I am the world’s greatest chef!”
12. SELF-REFUTING ASSERTIONS--This fallacy is to assert a truth that either refutes itself or that the act of asserting or arguing for the truth is contradictory to that belief. For instance, the assertion, “Language is too ambiguous to be reliable.” is self refuting in that making the assertion is to use language which is the thing being repudiated.
And “There are no absolute truths,” is self refuting in that it is asserted as an absolute truth. Or “I do not exist,” is self refuting in that you must exist in order to be able to make the truth assertion, so the making of the assertion refutes the content of the assertion.
An example of the self refuting fallacy is the Positive Law Fallacy—This is a Self Refuting Fallacy.--This fallacy is to morally condemn or to be outraged at assertions of or defenses of natural or higher law.
13. THE INCONSEQUENTIAL FALLACY (A Contradictory Fallacy)--This fallacy is to believe that all beliefs, faith systems, or religions are the same or of equal value. This, however, is patently absurd due to the Law Of Contradiction. If one religion asserts “a is true”, and another religion asserts “a is false”, then both religions cannot be true. And for anyone who cares about reality, they cannot then be of equal value.
There was a movement at departments of religion at secular schools and some religious schools back in the 1960’s to call themselves the Department of Religion (rather than “Department of Religions”). This was based on the presupposition that religion is singular, that all religions affirmed the same truths. But this endeavor was quickly abandoned.
In spite of the best efforts of many to reconcile the truth assertions of the various religions, it was found that in any universe that was not purely chaotic and arbitrary or in which language and reason actually matter, it was impossible to create a unified view of the major world religions. This reality was noted by Boston University philosopher ______ Brightman, “A world in which both Catholicism and Christian Science are true would be a cosmic madhouse.”
14. BULVERISM (An Ad Hominem Argument)--This fallacy is to reject the truthfulness of an idea because of the emotional needs, drives, or impulses or the intellectual limitations of its proponents.
For instance, your wife asks for reassurance before going out for the evening that she looks “okay”? You look at her and are awed by how beautiful she looks, and you tell her she looks beautiful . She then tells you, “You’re just saying that because you don’t want to hurt my feelings.” And it may be true that you don’t want to hurt her feelings, or that you want to reassure her so the two of you can leave and arrive on time. But none of your feelings have anything to do with whether your statement about her appearance is true or false.
Or you tell your teenager that she cannot go to a party that you have learned will be unsupervised, and you have heard plans of kids to bring alcohol to the party. So she tells you, “You just don’t want me to go to that party because you are afraid I might have some fun in life.” What you want, or what you fear, has nothing to do with the factual base of your decision that it is not safe for your daughter to attend this party. But she uses bulverism to manipulate you instead of refuting your facts about the party.
Of course, the emotions, needs, or impulses of a person making a statement tell us nothing about the truth of the assertion. And it is irrational to bulverize, i.e. to reject an assertion merely because you can suggest an emotional need or a motivation that might be influencing the one making the assertion.
However, there is one exception when it is rational to bring up the emotions, wants, or needs of one making an assertion. When a person makes an assertion that is clearly refuted by facts or by reason, and those facts or reason are known to be available to that person, then it is legitimate to ask what feelings, needs, or motives might be driving that person to make a false assertion.
In other words, to refute an argument by raising the feelings or needs of the person making that argument prior to the evidence is to bulverize. However, to raise the issue of the feelings or needs of a person who makes an argument that has already been refuted by the facts is a rational endeavor.
Section
II--FALLACIES OF MISHANDLING THE EVIDENCE:
15. THE RATIONALISTIC FALLACY--This fallacy is to prefer pure reason over evidence from the real world; to prefer purely analytic proofs over empirical observation. Of course, it the assertion being evaluated is about anything in the real world, observations from the real world take precedence over pure reason.
For instance, pure reason would tell you that “if Bret Starr is taller than Coby Bryant, and if Coby Bryant is taller than Shaque O’Neil, then Bret Star is taller than Shaque O’Neil.” Although this syllogism is logically an absolutely valid syllogism, it completely contradicts reality in the real world.
Scientific tests prove that light is made up of tiny particles called photons. And other tests prove that light is a wave. So, the modern definition of light is that it is a particle wave. The difficulty is that the scientific definitions of particles and waves are mutually exclusive. Can any scientist explain this logical contradiction? Absolutely not. So, why do they stick with this definition of light? Because of the empirical evidence gathered in the world.
The reason the scientific method was not born during the intellectual height of the Hellenistic age or for almost two millennia afterwards is the Greeks, and their philosophical descendents after them, were rationalists who believed that the nature of the real world could be discovered through pure reason and that reason always trumped observation. It was not until the Reformation emphasis on the universe as an intelligible revelation of a reasonable God that could be understood by reasonable men that the emphasis shifted to observation and the scientific revolution was born.
So, as our logical fallacies emphasize, reason is indispensable to quality of life for humans, but even pure reason gets trumped every time by evidence gathered in the real world.
16. THE HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBILITY FALLACY--This fallacy is to believe that an argument for a belief is that it is hypothetically possible. This is to divert the issue from what is evidentially probable.
Prior to the evidence, anything is possible. It is possible that all people other than yourself are monkeys (or aliens) in people suits. But considering the lack of evidence of such creatures inhabiting people suits, it is--to say the least--hardly probable .
So, when people argue for or against an idea by saying, “Isn’t it possible that . . .”, if you are talking about anything in the real world, what is possible is irrelevant. What is relevant are any positions for which there is evidence.
17. REDUCTIONISTIC FALLACY--This fallacy is to reduce some multifaceted or complex concept or entity to only one of its elements or qualities. "A flag’s only piece of cloth." "God is only a father figure." And you are only a bunch of molecules, so how can I possibly pay any attention to your opinions concerning flags and God? Oops. That was illogical . However, it was highly illustrative, you have to admit.
18. Universal Bias Fallacy--This fallacy is to reject the possibility of objective knowledge or objective facts because of the universality of bias. This is a self-refuting fallacy in that if it is true, any tendency on your part to argue that we are all biased is due to your bias. And there is no point in your arguing that such bias exists because my acceptance or rejection of your argument will be due to my bias rather than to your argument.
And it is reductionistic in affirming only one possible reason for persons reaching conclusions: their bias. Of course, bias may affect our conclusions, but there are other reasons that influence our conclusions as well, and one of those is the weight of evidence.
As a matter of fact, there is much historical evidence that the most powerful tool in overcoming bias or prejudice is evidence. As evidence on some issue accumulates, bias may at first resist the truth to which the evidence points. But if evidence keeps being gathered, the cumulative weight of the evidence finally overwhelms the existing bias and the prejudiced belief collapses.
19. FALSE DILEMNA—This fallacy is to reduce the number of options to only two. Then one of the options is disproved, and is in then argued that you then have to accept the other option as necessarily true.
For instance, a false dilemma would be for me to tell you, “Either prove I am insane, or accept what I am telling you.” Then I would give you a list of evidence that suggests that I am not insane (Weird, maybe. But definitely not insane). And I would then tell you that you therefore have to accept as fact everything I tell you.
Of course, the truth is that you have a number of other options concerning what you believe about me besides that I am insane or believing that everything I tell you is necessarily true. I may be brilliant, but not always right. I may have good things to say and consider, but at times prone to mistakes in my thinking. I may be a brilliant charlatan who is manipulating you for some selfish end. I may be kind of goofy and irrational, but am sort of interesting. Well, you get the idea.
The key to recognizing that you are being sold a false dilemma is that you are being told to adopt an assertion not based on the evidence, but merely because an alternative assertion has been disproved.
EVIDENTIAL CATEGORICAL FALLACIES—Some evidential fallacies mishandle the evidence simply by placing something in the wrong category. There are several ways that this is done.
20. OVER-GENERALIZATION--This fallacy is to treat “one” or "some” instances of something as if they represent “most” or "all" instances of that thing. “All capitalists are selfish rich guys.” “Most men are chauvinistic.” “Most women are gold diggers.”
21. ANECDOTAL FALLACY—An over generalization fallacy--This fallacy is to treat one (or several) anecdotal experience as if it establishes the common experience shared by everyone, or a high degree of probability, or even a universal or necessary truth.
22. PROVINCIAL OR EGOISTIC FALLACY--An anecdotal fallacy--This fallacy is to treat one’s own experience as if it establishes the common experience shared by everyone, or a high degree of probability, or even a universal or necessary truth.
23. BIASED SELECTION—This is the over generalization fallacy, except it is to over-generalize when : (1) evidence has already been gathered, and (2) most of the evidence refutes one’s truth assertion; but one argues for that position anyway, using only that evidence that supports the assertion. This would be to argue, “Most men are jerks,” after meeting thousands of men, but using evidence only from the half-dozen men that one has dated who were in fact certifiably “jerks.”
Advocates for global warming fall for this fallacy when they argue for global warming by using temperatures of larger cities around the globe.
The problem with this is that as cultures world-wide become less agrarian, the earth’s cities are rapidly growing. And large cities result in 50% of their surface areas being covered with concrete or asphalt, both of which retain heat from the sun. So, temperatures within growing cities naturally rise over time.
Other evidence gathered from satellites that scan the temperatures for the entire earth, from tree rings, from ice cores in Antarctica and Greenland, from sediment on deep ocean beds, and from many other sources all indicate that the earth over-all is in a cooling rather than a heating period. One can argue that either position, in light of available evidence is tenable. But to selectively bias the evidence presented in favor of global warming is to fall to the Biased Selection Fallacy.
24. ARGUMENT OF THE BEARD--An over-generalization fallacy--This fallacy is to ignore the significance of thresholds or the significance of a difference in the degree to which something is true--to treats “a few of” or “some of” as being equal to "much of" or "all of." “Since a beard is facial hair, and since all men have facial hair, then all men have beards.”
25. FALSE ANALOGY FALLACY—A categorical fallacy--This fallacy is either to confuse illustration with demonstration or to use analogy to illustrate invalid points.
An analogy is not evidence. It cannot demonstrate the truth of an assertion. All it can do is illustrate an assertion which still depends on evidence in order to be validated as true. And even when an analogy is used merely to illustrate, honesty requires that the analogy’s details reflect accurately the point of the assertion that is being illustrated.
If I say of a politician, “His constant changing of positions is like the flittering around of a bird trying to escape,” this in no way demonstrates that the politician in fact constantly changes positions. It only illustrates the fact that he does so, and the analogy should be made only if this has already been validated by evidence.
And secondly, one could not logically try to use the “trying to escape” portion of the analogy to imply something about the politician’s motives or mental state in taking different positions unless there is also evidence to support that specific allegation.
Tillich's analogy of the king vs. the approach of Abu Q'ura
B. Incongruous Analogy Fallacy—This fallacy is to imply that because the idea under discussion and a disreputable idea have some common facet(s), they therefore are equally false or noxious. It is rooted in a confusion between analogy and identity. For two things to be analogous, i.e. have some point in common, does not mean that they are identical to one another or congruent. For instance, Hitler and Ghandi are analogous in that they both devoted their lives to strongly held beliefs. But this analogy does not at all mean that Hitler and Ghandi are morally equivalent or should be compared to one another to any great extent beyond the point of the analogy. This is similar to # 7-B, the Guilt By Exaggeration Fallacy.
26. OBJECTIVITY FALLACY--A categorical fallacy--This fallacy is to believe that fairness and objectivity is to treat all sides in a debate equally. But if this is what fairness and objectivity means, shouldn’t we give the flat earth society equal time with modern astronomy and cosmology? And shouldn’t we give snake oil salesmen the same coverage as the American Cancer Society? Of course, that is absurd, because fairness is not to give equal time to any assertion no matter how silly.
In truth, fairness and objectivity is to give regard to different positions based upon their relative reasonableness and evidence. Objectivity is going with the evidence. Ideas supported by more evidence get more time, ideas with less evidence get less time, ideas with no evidence are told to come back when you have some.
CATEGORICAL FALLACIES OF CAUSATION
27. CORRELATIONAL FALLACY—This fallacy is to confuse correlation with causation, to believe because two events have some incidental relationship (such as that they happen close to one another in space or time) that there is a causal relationship between them. For instance, one would be falling to the correlational fallacy if he noted, “The victim was reading the comics when he died. We should warn people with any heart problems to avoid the comics.”
This fallacy seems to afflict particularly baseball players (“I couldn’t find my clean socks before the game, and then I went four for four. I’ll never wash these socks again.”) and conspiracy theorists (“Both the President and his opponent were members of The Skull and Bones Society at Yale. The Skull and Bones Society clearly is manipulating our national primaries so they can keep control of America.”)
The correlational fallacy is a categorical fallacy because it fails to recognize that there are endless kinds of relationships by which things and events can be connected to one another, only one of which is a causal relationship. To argue causation, one must show evidence not merely that two things are related, but specific evidence that shows that they are causally related to one another.
Guilt by association is a correlational fallacy, as are arguments that women get lesser pay because of gender bias, blacks are charged higher interest rates on home mortgages and higher insurance rates because of racial bias, and minorities get longer criminal sentences due to racial bias.
28. NECESSARY CAUSE FALLACY—This is a correlational fallacy--This fallacy is to confuse the prerequisite conditions (“necessary causes”) of an event with the actual causes of the event (“sufficient causes”).
For instance, a passenger in your car is injured when you are hit by a drunk who runs a red light while you are driving through the intersection. And you start tormenting yourself with things like, “If I had just left home on time, we would not have been in that intersection,” “if I had just taken the freeway,” if we had just decided to stay home and study instead of going to the movie,” “if I had just driven slower, he would have been past the intersection.”
What you are doing is running through the prerequisites (necessary causes) for the drunk to run into you when he ran the red light, and you are tormenting yourself that you caused (sufficient cause) the accident. The thing you have to remember is that all the preconditions (“necessary causes”) would have caused neither the collision nor your passenger’s injuries if the drunk had not been driving while drunk and running the red light.
You could repeat all the prerequisites every day for years and there would have been no accident. Because the prerequisites are not the actual causes of the accident. The drunk running the red light was the cause. Even if you, your car, and your passenger did not exist, the drunk in just a few repetitions of his behavior would have hit someone else. Because it is his DWI behavior that “caused” the accident.
29. MENTOR FALLACY—This is one form of the Necessary Causes Fallacy--This fallacy is to blame an evil person’s mentor or someone who assisted the evil person in the past to develop his opportunities, talents, or skills for the destructive choices or actions of the evil person. For instance, a parent would be blamed for evil choices made by an adult. U.S. and Saddam Hussein.
30. POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC—“After This, Therefore Because Of This”—A correlational fallacy--This fallacy is to believe that because one event preceded another, the first event was the cause (sufficient cause) of the second event. “My alarm clock causes traffic jams. Traffic never gets bad until the hour after my alarm goes off in the mornings.”
31. ANTE HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC—“Before This, Therefore Because of This”—A correlational fallacy—This fallacy is to believe that because one event followed another, the first event was motivated by the second event. “We invaded Iraq in order to have access to Iraq’s oil.”
32. SEQUENCING FALLACY—This fallacy is choose a particular set of events in a larger chain of events, and to say this particular set of events as the “cause” of the latest (or current) events in the chain--or even as the cause of the entire chain. The Classic Counseling Trap: “The wife says she nags because the husband withdraws, and the husband says he withdraws because the wife nags.” Counselors are trained to avoid getting caught up in the sequencing fallacy.
33. GROUNDS-CONSEQUENT FALLACY—This fallacy is to confuse a ground-consequent relationship with a cause-effect relationship.
“Grounds” are the ideas, data, and facts that lead logically to an intellectual conclusion. The “consequent” conclusion is “grounded on” the information that led to that conclusion. Therefore the conclusion often is said to be “caused by” these grounds.
But this ground-consequent relationship is entirely different than a mechanical cause-effect relationship. Furthermore, it is incompatible with a cause-effect relationship. A conclusion is rational only if it is free, based on the evidence, rather than determined by some “cause”.
If a decision is determined by causal factors, it is rejected by as irrational, since it is not rationally based on evidence, but is a forced “effect”. A man whose fear of a dog by is due to a childhood experience that forces him to fear all dogs is not considered to be a rational source of information on the dog.
You may have already recognized that this fallacy is the basis of the bulverism fallacy.
The classic example of this fallacy is Hume’s argument against cause and effect when he treats the two interchangeably and keeps changing back and forth between them in his argument.
34. OVERSIMPLIFICATION—This fallacy is to look at only one or a few causal factors as the reason(s) for some phenomenon or event, overlooking or ignoring other equally important factors. This is similar to the reductionistic fallacy, in which some entity is reduced to only one of its characteristics or qualities, but in this case it is only one or a few of many causes that are singled out.
Section
III—AXIOLOGICAL FALLACIES:
35. VALUING FALLACY—This is a Subjective Fallacy--This is the fallacy of confusing the subjective feeling of “valuing” something with the objective question of what is indeed valuable OR of believing that some values can be logically validated or substantiated solely based on the subjective human feeling of some person or group that something is valuable.
I may feel that the piece of bauxite I found is a valuable precious stone, but that does not make it so. And I may feel that my latest boyfriend is Mr. Wonderful even though everyone else recognizes that he is a total jerk, but my feeling doesn’t demonstrate that he is Mr. Wonderful. My feeling reveals something about me, but does not validate anything about my boyfriend’s worth.
36. MOB RULE FALLACY--This fallacy is to believe that some value is substantiated or refuted by the degree of popular support for that value. “Twenty million Germans can be, and were, wrong about what is good and what is evil.”
The Mob Rule Fallacy is simply the belief that the Valuing Fallacy becomes less fallacious if many people share the feeling or belief that a particular thing is valuable. But all this amounts to is believing that one fallacious argument is useless, but a stack of many fallacious arguments somehow becomes convincing evidence. This is like arguing that one piece of rotting putrefying food is garbage, but an entire garbage bin of such food is high quality produce that should be marketed to restaurants.
37. MORAL RELATIVISM FALLACY—This is nothing more than the subjectivity fallacy applied to ethics, to believe that ethics are subjectively determined. However, it takes three forms: (1) Universal Relativism—to believe that humanity somehow collectively decides what morals are true, (2) Cultural Relativism—to believe that morality is determined by each culture, and (3) Individual Relativism (often called “situation ethics”) which believes that each individual decides what is ethically true.
38. AMORAL FALLACY--This fallacy is to believe that one can avoid making moral choices, that one can be morally neutral. Of course, in any true moral dilemma where a moral choice must be made, not to choose is to choose.
Sometimes a person will refuse to make a conscious moral choice because they don’t want to accept the responsibility for the choice, or for some other reason. But if the moral choice is a true dilemma in which there are only two options, all they are doing is refusing to make a conscious or intentional choice. Nevertheless, by not consciously choosing, they are making a the choice.
39. MORAL NEUTRALITY FALLACY--—This fallacy is to believe that one can avoid teaching or influencing the morals or values of children with whom one has a relationship.
The problem with this fallacy is that a primary way that children learn values is by hearing and seeing the values reflected in the words and actions of the adult mentors in their lives; by observing what is really important to those mentors. Thus, to refrain from teaching morality to a child is to teach that child that morality is not of great value in life or that moral decisions do not matter.”
40. GENETIC FALLACY—This is a Necessary Cause Fallacy—This fallacy is to morally indict a person, institution, or activity merely because in its origin or early development involved someone or something that was evil. For instance, to indict a “bastard” for her illegitimate birth is blame her for the immoral activity of her parents for which she had no control and has no culpability is to succumb to the genetic fallacy.
41. PROPHETIC FALLACY—This is a Necessary Cause Fallacy and is the opposite of the Genetic Fallacy—This fallacy is to indict a person, institution, or activity merely because they were involved in the origin or early development of someone or something that was evil. For instance, because we help someone in ruling another nation because they are the best alternative available at the time, to then blame our nation for that person’s later evil choices is to succumb to the Prophetic Fallacy. It is called “the prophetic fallacy” because it assumes that the person or institution blamed should have possessed foreknowledge as to the evil that would be done by the ones that they help.
Chapter
Section IV--FALLACIES OF THE HEART:
42. MYOPIC FALLACY—“The Illusion of Control Fallacy” or “The Good Intentions Fallacy”—This fallacy is to believe that the only consequences of an action will be those intended or the potentially positive ones. This requires the arrogance of believing one has the control to limit the consequences or actions or decisions to be only those one intends.
43. BOTH WAYS FALLACY—This fallacy is to reverse one’s opinion concerning some assertion or belief based on whether or not the belied benefits one’s own side or the side of one’s opponents. This fallacy is sadly endemic among politicians.
44. FALSE AUTHORITY—This fallacy is to base or to substantiate a belief on the opinion of someone who is highly regarded or is an expert in a field of knowledge other than the subject matter being discussed or debated.
Of course, an expert even in his own field does not validate a truth assertion just by stating his opinion (see fallacy # 4: assertum non est demonstratum). A respected authority is usually respected in his field because of his knowledge of the evidence. So, if an expert opposes an assertion we are making, it may legitimately cause us to investigate the reasons for his position or to review the evidence for our position.
But when an expert in one field makes an assertion in an altogether different field, her opinion is no more important than the opinion of any other person, which means it is totally insignificant until evidence is given supporting her position.
45. PIETISTIC FALLACY (A subjectivity fallacy)--“Beliefism”--This fallacy is to believe that the phenomenon of belief itself is of value irrespective of the validity or trustworthiness of the object of the belief. . Or to believe that the degree of faith or fervor is an evidence or justification for a belief.
In other words, value is placed on the experience of having belief rather than on the trustworthiness of the thing believed. Usually, there is a direct proportionality inherent in this fallacy that asserts the more one beliefs or trusts the object of belief, or the more baseless is the belief, the greater the merit or value of the belief. Which is patently absurd and often extremely dangerous.
46. UTOPIAN FALLACY—“The naïve idealism fallacy”--This fallacy is to reject as worthless a human community, regardless of its relative worth or merit, because it lacks perfection. In other words, it compares real communities or cultures, no matter how good they are compared to other real world communities, unfavorably with a fantasy idealized “utopia.”
This fallacy is a characteristic mistake of adolescents and young adults who want to make the world a better place, but who still suffer the naiveté to believe that an idealist dream without human weakness and evil can be achieved in the real world.
47. BENEVOLENT FALLACY—An Oversimplification Fallacy--This fallacy is to believe that love can make or cause someone to change who does not himself want to change. This is to believe that you can love someone into changing. It is the classic fallacious belief of women who marry abusive mates.
One sign that one has grown out of the naiveté of youth and become mature is when one has learned the value of love, but has accepted that one cannot make anyone change or reciprocate the love given them; i.e. that one cannot love someone into returning the love given to them.
48. LEGISLATING MORALITY FALLACY—This is a Categorical Fallacy—This fallacy is to assert that one cannot legislate morality. It is a failure to understand that all “statute law” is the legislating of morality.
Laws fall into two categories: statute law and procedural law. Procedural laws describe the process of the judicial system and of certain kinds of permits and licensed activities: file petitions to the court at this location, on this, form, between these hours; file for an alcohol or driver’s license at these locations; drive on the right side of the street.
Statute law are the laws that prohibit certain kinds of behaviors in society, that describe the minimum standards of behavior for continued participation in society, and all of them are the legislation of moral standards: “Don’t steal”, “don’t kill”, “don’t bear false witness”, “don’t injure an innocent”, etc.
Even many procedural laws have a moral foundation. You can’t just choose which side of the street on which you want to drive or the speed you would like to drive around the next curve because it is immoral to recklessly place the lives, health, and property of others in the community at risk.
What most people are trying to say, without giving much thought to what they say, when they state, “You can’t legislate morality,” is “We should not legislate into law all moral standards.” For instance, we don’t want to arrest people for being unkind, inconsiderate, mean, or selfish. For one thing, we can’t build enough jails, AND we would regularly have to arrest the police themselves, along with everyone else.
But more importantly, this would be the failure to understand that we only legislate one area (or category) of the moral code. And what is that category of ethics that we legislate? It is the area we call “justice”. In short, we legislate the protection of the life, health, welfare, and property of the innocent and weak and the equitable treatment of all the members of our society.
We don’t legislate the higher moral code such as mercy, forgiveness, and love. Those standards of the moral code by their very nature cannot be forced, but must be freely chosen. So, members and institutions of our culture other than the government teach, inculcate, and inspire our citizens and neighbors these higher standards of morality. What government forces, what we legislate into law, or the minimum standards of behavior in our society which demand that all our members are treated justly.
49. NIHILISTIC FALLACY—This fallacy is to choose not to believe anything or make any truth assertion in a mistaken effort to avoid error. However, not asserting any truth only guarantees that one will miss the truth, as opposed to only possibly missing the truth by making a truth assertion. When one asserts a truth, one at least has a possibility of being right. Whereas, if one refuses to assert any truth, it is impossible that any truth will be found.
Also, nihilistic fallacies are self refuting fallacies because nihilism itself is an implied truth assertion or a belief that asserts: “I don’t believe I can know enough to ever make any truth assertion,” or “I believe it is better not to assert any truth than to risk the possibility of being wrong.”
Section
V--THE ULTIMATE FALLACY (HISTORICAL FALLACIES)
These are called the ultimate fallacies because history is the main way that humans gain and pass on knowledge. Without history, the only ways we would know anything is through our limited personal observation, experience, and reasoning. The problem is that each of us is so limited in time and space, that this would limit us to a very small amount of knowledge in an entire life time.
The vast majority of the knowledge we gain about the universe and life is information gathered by and passed on to us by others. This is true even in the realm of science. Very little of an advanced scientist’s knowledge, except within the narrow scope of his own research, is information gathered by the scientist himself. And even pertaining to one’s own research, a pure research scientist relies upon historical testimony in peer review journals from those who have duplicated his experiments to validate his own methodology and measurements.
Thus, history is the queen of the sciences upon which most of science and most of our human knowledge is based. It is history that allows us to gather evidence about our world from places and at times that we could not be.
50. THE ANTI-HISTORICAL FALLACY—This fallacy is to believe that history is not a reliable way of knowing; it is inferior to science. It is to naively overlook the fact that history is the primary way humans know and disseminate knowledge including scientific knowledge. Without historical testimony, a human could never in a life time move beyond the level of a very primitive understanding of the world and how to survive in it.
51. THE HISTORICAL AMBIGUITY FALLACY—This fallacy is to believe that history as a science is inherently uncertain and ambiguous. It is to fail to understand that--just as in all the sciences--history is ambiguous when the evidence is ambiguous, and it is exactly as ambiguous as is the evidence. It is also to fail to understand that rather than being less reliable than the “hard sciences”, history is the queen of the sciences and is the foundational science for all the “hard sciences”.
52. CHRONOLOGICAL FALLACY—This fallacy is to believe that some person, generation, or culture is smarter, more educated, more aware, or wiser than a preceding person, generation, or culture simply because the first person(s) come later in time or history that do the preceding persons. It is to believe that chronology determines wisdom, knowledge, or insight. It assumes for instance that the ancients were naïve fools.