latin list of logic fallacies

7/31/2019 Latin List of Logic Fallacies

1/34

Logical Fallacies

Logic is the study of reasoning -- the nature of good (correct)

reasoning and of bad (incorrect) reasoning. Its focus is the method

by which an argument unfolds, not whether any arbitrary

statement is true or accurate. Thus, an argument can be both

deductively valid and perfectly absurd, as in 1. All telephone poles

are elephants. 2. Sally is a telephone pole. 3. Therefore, Sally is an

elephant. The conclusion is valid because it conforms to a correct

syllogistic pattern -- in this case, affirmation of the antecedent --

but is ludicrous at the same time.

As a "branch" of philosophy, logic is often broken down into

many subsets: for instance, modal logic, many-valued logic, modern

logic, symbolic logic, formal and informal logic, deductive and

inductive logic. Those interested in pursuing the subject in depth

should read and carefully examine the long articles in The

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, especially "A Glossary of Logical

Terms." Each article is followed by an extensive bibliography. (See

also Logic.)

A fallacy is an invalid form of argument, an instance of incorrect

reasoning. Below is a list of common fallacies. Hit the "Back"

button to return to the top.

Page 1 of 34Logical Fallacies

2010/04/20http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm


2/34

List of Fallacies:

affirming the consequent

anthrocentric fallacy

appeal to authority

a priori fallacies

arguing from "is" to "ought"

argumentum ad baculinum

argumentum ad captandum

argumentum ad crumenam

argumentum ad hominem

argumentum ad ignorantiam

argumentum ad lazarum

argumentum ad misericordiam

argumentum ad populum

argumentum ad verecundiam (see "appeal to authority")

argumentum ex silentio

begging the question

circular reasoning

equivocation

fallacy of false alternatives

fallacies of interrogation

flamboyance

gadarene swine fallacy

genetic fallacy

hasty generalization

if-then fallacies




3/34

ignoratio elenchi

invincible ignorance

naturalistic fallacy

non sequitur

paralogism

performative contradiction

petitio principii (see "begging the question")

poisoning the wells

post hoc ergo propter hoc

red herring

straw man fallacy

tu quoque fallacy

undistributed middle

Further Investigation




4/34

affirming the consequent -- A fallacy of the form "if A, then B; B,

therefore A". Example: "If Smith testifies against Jones in court,

Jones will be found guilty. Jones was found guilty. Therefore, Smith

must have testified against him." {Jones could have been found

guilty without Smith's testimony.}




5/34

anthrocentric (human-centered) fallacy -- This one isn't found in

standard texts, but was described by John Stuart Mill in System of

Logic. Consider the example of a preacher who one day takes

someone supposedly possessed of a demon, throws his hand on her

forehead, and shouts, "Get out! Leave this body!" Even supposing

that demons exist, one might find it curious that they understand

English, obey peremptory commands, and are easily influenced by

incantations and rituals. The a.f. here occurs at the presupposition

level: human language, reason, instincts, and desires are assumed to

be the orbit around which everything else in the universe (including

the aforementioned demons) revolve.




6/34


7/34

differences in nature must correspond to our received (linguistic)

distinctions; that whatever is, is rationally explicable; that there is no

action at a distance; that every phenomenon has a single cause; and

that effects must resemble their causes. These are all errors, but we

can go further and recognize a general apriorist fallacy, which

consists in trying to base knowledge of fundamental synthetic truths

on anything other than empirical evidence."

arguing from "is" to "ought" -- A fallacy first articulated by

David Hume (1711-1776) in which someone argues from a

premise containing only a descriptive term, to a conclusion




8/34

containing an "ought." Example: "There is nothing morally

wrong with the institution of slavery. It has been with us in some

form for thousands of years." (The fact that slavery has been with

us or is with us is not moral justification of the act. What is may

not be the same thing as what ought to be.)

argumentum ad baculinum -- Fallacy that occurs when threat of

force is made, either implicitly or explicitly. Example: "I'm

willing to discuss this in even more depth, but if you don't come

around soon, there may be dire consequences." (Baculum from

the Latin means "stick".)




9/34

argumentum ad captandum -- Any specious or unsound argument

that is likely to win popular acceptance. (literally, "for catching the

common herd").




10/34

argumentum ad crumenam -- The fallacy of supposing that a

conclusion must be valid because the person making the argument is

wealthy. (Crumena from the Latin means "purse".) An instance of

this fallacy is when someone turns to another and says, "Well, if

you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" One can be both smart and

poor, as indeed numerous philosophers throughout history were

(e.g., Lao-Tzu, Socrates, Spinoza).

argumentum ad hominem ("argument against the person") -- A

common fallacy in which someone argues against a position or claim

by assailing the proponent of it. The truth or falsehood of a position




11/34

doesn't depend on who does (or doesn't) espouse it. e.g. "You can't

trust Jones' theory of electromagnetic particles because he's a

communist." (The theory is good or bad because it comports (or

doesn't comport) with certain facts and evidence, not because the

man propounding it holds a political affiliation.)

argumentum ad ignorantiam ("arguing from ignorance") -- A

fallacy that occurs when someone argues that because we don't

know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack

proof that a statement is false, it must be true. Ignorance or lack

of evidence doesn't necessarily mean a position or claim is true

or false. Common Examples: "No one has ever proven that

UFOs exist. Therefore, they don't exist." (Something can exist

despite the absence of confirmation. Lack of proof is

justification for caution or even scepticism, but not dogmatic

assertions.) "There is simply no proof that God exists. Therefore,

God doesn't exist." (God might exist even though there is no way

empirically to prove it.)




12/34

argumentum ad lazarum -- The fallacy of supposing a conclusion

is valid because the argument is made by a poor person. It is the

opposite of the ad crumenam fallacy.




13/34

argumentum ad misericordiam -- Occurs when an appeal is made to

pity or to one's sympathetic nature. Example: "Augusto Pinochet is

an old, dying man. It is wrong to make him stand trial for alleged

offenses."




14/34

argumentum ad populum -- This fallacy occurs when an argument

panders to popular passion or sentiment. When, for instance, a

politician exclaims in a debate that his opponent "is out of step with

the beliefs of everyone in the audience," he/she is committing the

fallacy. The legitimacy of a statement depends not on its popularity,

but on its truth credentials.




15/34

argumentum ex silentio -- The fallacy of supposing that someone's

silence is necessarily proof of ignorance. Two people, for instance,

may be debating a political issue on a cable news program. One may

be in the studio with the host, the other appearing via satellite. Their

time on air reaches the point when each only has a few seconds left

to make a closing comment. One of the debaters asks his opponent a

very technical, complex question, and the opponent is speechless for

a few seconds. "Go ahead," the debater screams. "Answer my

question! See? He can't answer." A viewer may be left with the

impression that the person's speechlessness is tantamount to

ignorance, when in fact any number of things could have happened:

1) the satellite connection could've been lost or experiencing

problems; 2) the debater was thinking about how best to answer a

difficult question under such an immediate time constraint; 3) the

debater might not have even heard the whole question. There may be

reasons for temporary silence other than ignorance.




16/34

begging the question -- Circular reasoning in which a claim is

assumed to be true and is then tucked in the conclusion. e.g.

"Government by the people is ideal because democracy is the leastinadequate form of government." ("Government by the people" is

the working definition of democracy; the first part of the statement

needs to be proven, not reasserted in the predicate.)




17/34

circular reasoning -- Sometimes known as circulus in demonstrando,

or begging the question. H.W. Fowler, inModern English Usage,

puts it this way: "The basing of two conclusions each upon the other.

That the world is good follows from the known goodness of God;

that God is good is known from the excellence of the world he has

made."

equivocation -- Sometimes referred to as "amphiboly". A fallacy that

stems from the ambiguous meaning of certain words. For example,1. Only man is logical. 2. No woman is a man. 3. Therefore, no

woman is logical. "Man" in the first sentence really means

"mankind," "humankind," "homo sapiens". "Man" in the second

sentence means "maleness". The syllogism appears to be valid, but

in fact is fallacious because of the subtle shift in meaning.




18/34

fallacy of false alternatives -- A fallacy occurring when the number

of alternatives is said to be fewer than the actual number. Common

examples of this fallacy are statements containing either/or,

nothing/but, all-or-nothing elements. Examples: "Is she a Democrat

or a Republican?" (She may be a socialist, a libertarian, a Leninist,

an anarchist, a feminist or any number of other things, including one

who is strictly apolitical.) "If you aren't for your country, then you

are against it." (One may be neither "for" nor "against" but may

occupy a position of strict neutrality or be affirmative sometimes and

critical at others.)




19/34

fallacies of interrogation -- There are two forms of this particular

fallacy. One is asking two or more questions and demanding a single

answer when, in fact, each question might require separate

treatment. The other form is asking a question whose answer would

necessitate acceptance of a presupposition, one which the answerer

might separately deny. The famous example of this second form is

asking, "Do you still beat your wife?" Answering "no" legitimates

the question and does nothing to contradict the presupposition that

the husband once did beat his wife. Asking a question with

presuppositions is fine so long as a narrow answer is not demanded.




20/34

flamboyance -- The manner in which someone speaks can easily

draw unwarranted support for a thesis or idea. Incisive wit, verbal

facility, equanimity and repartee have no bearing at all on the

soundness/legitimacy of a position. It is the essence of what is said,

not the manner in which it is said, that counts. As Bertrand Russell

once noted, the purpose of being educated is to defend ourselves

against the seductions of eloquence.

genetic fallacy -- A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks the

cause or origin of a belief rather than its substance. Why a person

believes something is not relevant to the belief's

legitimacy/soundness/validity. Example: "Smith's belief in God

stems from a subsconscious need for a fatherly figure and is thus a




21/34

total joke." (The psychological link may in fact be true and may

even shed some light on the personality of Smith, but is nevertheless

irrelevant to the truth/falsehood of his belief.)

hasty generalization -- The habit of arriving at a bold conclusion

based on a limited sample of evidence. This often occurs with

statistics. For instance, someone may ask ten women and one man

what their opinion is of contemporary male-female relationships and

from this sample draw a sweeping conclusion; hasty generalization

would then be said to exist.




22/34

if-then fallacies -- 1. Affirming the consequent(If P, then Q. Q.

Therefore P.). 2. Denying the antecedent(If P, then Q. Not P.

Therefore not Q.) 3. Converting a conditional(If P, then Q.

Therefore if Q, then P.) 4. Negating antecedent and consequent(If

P, then Q. Therefore if not P, then not Q.)




23/34


24/34

invincible ignorance -- the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of

one's position in the face of contradictory facts. Statements like "I

really don't care what the experts say; no one is going to convince

me that I'm wrong"; "nothing you say is going to change my mind";

"yeah, okay, whatever!" are examples of this fallacy.

naturalistic fallacy -- From theEncyclopedia of Philosophy: "What

G.E. Moore called the naturalistic fallacy is the identifying of

goodness with any natural characteristic, such as pleasantness or

being the object of desire. If there is a distinct property, goodness, it

will of course be an error to identify it with any other feature, even if

the two are coextensive, and this would be an example of the refusal

to distinguish what we cannot separate; however, it must first be




25/34

shown that there is such a property as Moore's goodness.

Alternatively, if it is a question of how the word 'good' is commonly

used, then it would be an error to say that it is used to convey somenatural description. However, if the naturalist is not trying to report

the ordinary use, but is saying that this ordinary use is somehow

unsatisfactory (and also that there is no such property as the one of

which Moore speaks) and is therefore proposing a different use,

where is his mistake? It is true that if he redefines 'good' as the name

of some natural characteristic, but still also uses the word in its

ordinary evaluative or prescriptive sense, he will be slipping into a

fallacy of ambiguity; but a consistent ethical naturalist may be

committing no fallacy at all."

non sequitur ("it does not follow") -- A statement that does not

logically follow from what preceded it; a conclusion that does not

follow from the premises.




26/34

paralogism -- Any fallacious or illogical argument generally.




27/34

poisoning the wells -- This entry comes from an article by Albury

Castell titled "Analyzing A Fallacy," which was included in the

book Readings In Speech, edited by Haig Bosmajian (Harper &

Row, 1965). Here is the full quote: "During the last century a

famous controversy took place between Charles Kingsley and

Cardinal Newman. It began, I believe, by Kingsley suggesting that

truth did not possess the highest value for a Roman Catholic priest;

that some things were prized above truth. Newman protested that

such a remark made it impossible for an opponent to state his case.

How could Newman prove to Kingsley that he did have more regard

for truth than for anything else, if Kingsley argued from the premiss

that he did not? It is not merely a question of two persons

entertaining contradictory opinions. It is subtler than that. To put it

baldly, Newman would be logically 'hamstrung.' Any argument he

might use to prove that he did entertain a high regard for truth was

automatically ruled out by Kingsley's hypothesis that he did not.




28/34

Newman coined the expressionpoisoning the wells for such unfair

tactics...The phrasepoisoning the wells exactly hits off the difficulty.

If the well is poisoned, no water drawn from it can be used. If a case

is so stated that contrary evidence is automatically precluded, no

arguments against it can be used."

post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") --

This might also be described as the causality fallacy: Event Y

follows from EventX, so one automatically concludes thatXcaused

Y. (A young man walks by a neighbor's house and sees a cat

scurrying away; he looks up and sees a giant hole in the window.




29/34

The hole, he infers, must have been caused by the cat, who fell

through the pane. The inference is hasty, because the hole might

have been caused by any number of things -- a baseball that missed a

friend's glove and flew over his head; young brothers fighting inside

and accidentally smashing the window, etc.).

red herring -- An attempt to divert attention from the crux of an

argument by introduction of anecdote, irrelevant detail, subsidiary

facts, tangential references, and the like.




30/34

straw man -- A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks a lessdefensible position than the one actually being put forth. This occurs

very often in politics, when one seeks to derive maximum approval

for himself/herself or for a cause. Example: "Opposition to the North

American Free Trade Agreement amounts to nothing but opposition

to free trade." (Someone can believe in free and open trade and yet

still oppose NAFTA.)




31/34

tu quoque ("you too") fallacy -- The fallacy of assuming an

argument is specious because it is either inconsistent with the

person's actions or inconsistent with previous claims/arguments. A

person may "preach" about something and act in a very different

manner, but this fact has no bearing on the specific argument he is

advancing at any time. Inconsistency, moreover, may raise issues of

hypocrisy or double standards, but it does not bear upon the

argument at hand. Example: "Smith: If someone hits you, you shouldturn the other cheek. Violence only begets violence, and violence in

and of itself is wrong.Jones: That's a joke. You used to hit people

when they picked a fight with you." (Smith may not have practiced

what he now preaches, but two of his premises -- that violence only

begets violence, and that violence is wrong -- need to be carefully

examined.)




32/34

undistributed middle -- A fallacy of the form "All A are B. All C are

B. Therefore, all A are C." Consider: All elms are trees. All oaks are

trees. Therefore, all elms are oaks.




33/34

Further Investigation

Years of intense study and training are not needed to develop a

rough understanding of logic or, for that matter, of any other branch

of philosophy. Much ground can be gained by reading a few

chapters of several books, by foraging through various collections in

used or old bookstores, and by visiting a few good sites on the web.

Below is a list of prominent logicians and their work:

Aristotle: Categories; On Interpretation;Prior Analytics;

Posterior Analytics; Topics; Sophistical Refutations.

Francis Bacon:Novum Organum

Descartes:Discourse on Method

John Dewey: Reconstruction In Philosophy

John Stuart Mill: System of Logic

W.V. Quine,Mathematical Logic.

Bertrand Russell: The Problems of Philosophy; The Principles of

Mathematics.

Gilbert Ryle: Dilemmas

Ludwig Wittgenstein: Philosophical Investigations

Other Works:

Rudolf Carnap, Introduction to Symbolic Logic and its

Applications.

Alonzo Church,Introduction to Mathematical Logic.

M.R. Cohen & Ernest Nagel,An Introduction to Logic and




34/34

Scientific Method.

W.W. Fearnside & W.B. Holther,Fallacy -- The Counterfeit of

Argument.

- Return Home -


latin list of logic fallacies

Documents