(Complete)
Because of the imprecise definitions I had to use to have such broad categorizations some of the fallacies appear in more than one category. This bothered me until my research showed that the schemes professional and academic logicians use have this same weakness, albeit not as frequently as my method.
BLACK
Alleged Certainty: Assertion
Assertion: What I say is true.
Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
Subverted Support: The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist
BLUE
Abusive Ad Hominem: Attack the person
Ad Absurdum: Appeal to Ridicule. Also called the horse laugh.
Ad Antiquitatem: Appeal to Tradition - "We have always done it this way."
Ad Baculum: Appeal to Fear
Ad Hominem Abusive: Attack the person
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque: Personal Inconsistency
Ad Hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument. Attacking the personal instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.
Ad Metum: Appeal to Fear
Ad Misericordiam: Appeal to Pity - "I'm feeling blue, quit picking on me."
Ad Nauseum: Repetition
Ad Novitam: Appeal to Novelty
Ad Numeram: Appeal to Common Practice
Ad Populum: Appeal to Common Belief or Bandwagon
Ad Verecundiam: Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Authority: the authority is not an expert in the field; experts in the field disagree; or the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious. Where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
Appeal to Belief: Appeal to Common Belief.
Appeal to Common Belief: If others believe it to be true, it must be true.
Appeal to Common Practice: If others do it, it must be ok to do it too.
Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party
Appeal to Emotion: If it feels good, it must be true. Where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
Appeal to Fear: Gaining compliance through threat; a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side.
Appeal to flattery: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support
Appeal to Force: Appeal to Fear, the reader or listener is persuaded to agree by force
Appeal to Majority: Common Belief
Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer
Appeal to Novelty: Newer is better; where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern
Appeal to Pity: Going for the sympathy vote; the listener or the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy
Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad lazarum): thinking a conclusion is correct because the speaker is financially poor or incorrect because the speaker is financially wealthy
Appeal to ridicule: Mocking the other person's claim; a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous. Sometimes this arguments has no words, just laughter.
Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
Appeal to Sympathy: Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Tradition: It has always been done this way, so this way is right; where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long-standing tradition behind it
Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam): concluding that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich or that a statement is incorrect because the speaker is poor
Appeals to Motives in Place of Support
Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force", "appeal to the stick"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party
Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true
Attacking the Person: the person's character is attacked; the person's circumstances are noted or the person does not practice what is preached
Bandwagon: Appeal to Common Belief
Chronological snobbery: where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held
Circumstantial Ad Hominem: Attack the persons circumstances
Consequences: Appeal to Fear; the listener or the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences
Discredit: Poisoning the Well - Perf uses this when she calls keys parts unattractive names
False attribution: occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
Golden Age fallacy: Also known as the Nostalgia fallacy. Where the solution to a particular problem is asserted as a return to the assumed social values or worldview of an earlier "Golden Age"; when said problem is deemed not to have existed, or was less significant than in the present time (and which is typically a historically incorrect assertion).
Ignorance of Refutation: Missing the Point
Ignoratio Elenchi: Missing the Point (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis)
In Terrorem: Appeal to Fear
Irrelevant Conclusion: Missing the Point, an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion
Judgmental language: insultive or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment
Missing the Point: Drawing the wrong conclusion.
Personal Inconsistency: Past words or deeds do not match claim.
Poisoning the well: Discrediting the person before they speak; where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true
Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author
Red Herring: Distracting with an irrelevancy. Also called a "fallacy of relevance." This occurs when the speaker is trying to distract the audience by arguing some new topic, or just generally going off topic with an argument.
Reductio ad Absurdum: Appeal to Ridicule
Scare Tactics: Appeal to Fear
Social Conformance: Agree with me or be socially isolated.
Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument. It is based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance.
Tu quoque: a Latin term literally meaning, "you too." It is used to mean a type of logical fallacy. The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position
Two wrongs make a right: occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out
Value of Community: Appeal to Common Belief
Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason. "I am right because I wish it to be so."
You too: Personal Inconsistency
BROWN
Accent: Emphasis that changes the meaning of the sentence.The emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says
Amphibology: Amphiboly
Amphiboly: A sentence has two different meanings because the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations.
Contextomy (Fallacy of quoting out of context): refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning
Definist fallacy: involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other
Emphasis: Accent
Equivocation: A single word with more than one meaning. (No true Scotsman): the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time) The same term is used with two different meanings
Failure to Elucidate: The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined
If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question.
Reification (hypostatization): a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
GREEN
Appeal to probability: because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.
Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
Biased Sample: Unrepresentative Sample
Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect
Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a phrase used in the sciences and the statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: False Cause
Fallacy of the single cause ("joint effect", or "causal oversimplification"): occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False Cause: A causes B (but no proof).
False Effect: A is assumed to cause B. B is proven wrong, so A is wrong.
Gambler's Fallacy: Chance can be predicted; the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events
Insignificant: Making a minor cause seem major; one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect
Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause
Non Causa Pro Causa: False Effect
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Post Hoc: because one thing happens before another, it is held to cause the other; also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
Questionable Cause: False Cause
Regression fallacy: ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Texas sharpshooter fallacy: information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning
Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.
ORANGE
Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.
False analogy: The two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar, false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument
False Metaphor: False Analogy
Incomplete comparison: where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
Syllogistic fallacy: logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.
Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property
PURPLE
Cherry picking: act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position
Fallacy of Exclusion: Unrepresentative Sample; evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
Non-support: Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased
Suppressed correlative: an argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible
Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
RED
Begging the question ("petitio principii"): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises. Circular reasoning to prove assumed premise; the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises
Bifurcation: False Dilemma
Bogus Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three or more options
Chicken and Egg argument: Begging the Question
Circular cause and consequence: where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
Circular Definition: The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition
Circular Reasoning: Begging the Question
Circulus in Demonstrando: Begging the Question
Complex Question: two questions, one answer allowed; two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition
Double Bind: Complex Question
Either/Or: False Dilemma
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
False Dichotomy: False Dilemma or Excluded Middle
False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are three or more.
False Question: Complex Question
In a Certain Respect and Simply: Extending assumed boundaries too far.
Loaded Question: Complex Question
Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is "good" or "right".
Petitio Principii: Begging the Question
Reasoning in a Circle: Begging the Question
Vicious Circle: Circular reasoning to prove assumed premise.
WHITE CLOUD
Association fallacy (guilt by association)
Composition: Generalizing from a few to the whole set; because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property. Where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole
Division: Assuming the parts have the characteristics of the whole; because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property. Where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
Ecological fallacy: Conclusion about individual from group data. Inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong
Exception fallacy: Conclusions about group from individual data.
False Division: Division
Faulty Deduction: Division
Faulty Induction: Composition
Generalization: Composition
Hasty Generalization: Generalizing from too-small a sample; the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
Hasty Induction: Hasty Generalization
Inductive Generalization: Hasty Generalization
Insufficient Sample: Hasty Generalization
Insufficient Statistics: Hasty Generalization
Leaping to Conclusion: Hasty Generalization
Lonely Fact: Hasty Generalization
Overwhelming exception (hasty generalization): It is a generalization which is accurate, but comes with one or more qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume
Package-deal fallacy: consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way
Spotlight fallacy: when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media
Statistical Generalization: Hasty Generalization
Sweeping Generalization: Accident
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole. What is true about any sample is also true about the population.
WHITE LIGHT
Bifurcation: False Dilemma
Black and White Thinking: Excluded Middle
Bogus Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three or more options
Either/Or: False Dilemma
False Dichotomy: False Dilemma or Excluded Middle
False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are three or more.
WHITE SNOWFLAKE
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard): appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.
Hasty Generalization: Generalizing from too-small a sample; the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
Hasty Induction: Hasty Generalization
Inductive Generalization: Hasty Generalization
Insufficient Sample: Hasty Generalization
Insufficient Statistics: Hasty Generalization
Leaping to Conclusion: Hasty Generalization
Lonely Fact: Hasty Generalization
Statistical Generalization: Hasty Generalization
YELLOW BANANA
Absurd Extrapolation: Slippery Slope
Slippery slope: argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact. Loosely connected statements with ridiculous conclusion - a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn.
YELLOW BUTTERCUP
Limited Depth: The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes
Limited Scope: The theory which explains can only explain one thing
Misleading vividness: involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem
Proof by example: where things are proven by giving an example.
Too Broad: The definition includes items which should not be included
Too Narrow: The definition does not include all the items which should be included
Planned for the next book:
(I did not use them all in this book. I have one very enthusiastice fan, so I'm going to write another book and take it up a notch.)
Accident: A general rule used to explain a specific case not covered by it or when an exception to the generalization is ignored. A generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception
Ad Ignorantium: Argument from Ignorance
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise: when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise
Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true.
Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named
Appeal to ignorance ("argument from ignorance"): Accepting circumstantial evidence. The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."
Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion must necessarily be false.
Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): Accepting circumstantial evidence. The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): signifies that it has been discussed extensively (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio): a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence
Burden of proof: refers to the extent to which, or the level of rigour with which, it is necessary to establish, demonstrate or prove something for it to be accepted as true or reasonable to believe
Canceling Hypotheses: Conspiracy Theory
Conflicting Conditions: The definition is self-contradictory
Conjunction fallacy: assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
Conspiracy Theory: Reframe refutation as further proof.
Converse accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter): when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for
Converse Accident : Hasty Generalization; an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply
Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.
Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none.
Destroying the Exception: Accident
Dicto Simpliciter: Accident
Existential Fallacy: A particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises. An argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion.
Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise: as the name implies
Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
Fallacy of four terms: a categorical syllogism has four terms.
Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises.
False compromise/middle ground: Extreme views are wrong. The middle way is right. Asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct
Four Terms: All A is B. All C is D. So all A is D.
From Ignorance: Argument from ignorance; because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false
Genetic fallacy: where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
Historian's fallacy: occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. It is not to be confused with presentism, a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas (such as moral standards) are projected into the past.
Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process.
Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate
Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject
Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true
Inconsistent comparison: where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
Informal fallacy: arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural ("formal") flaws.
Intentional fallacy: addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance
Logical Inconsistency: Arguments that contradict one another.
Loki's Wager: the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.
Many Questions: overloading them with lots of questions.
Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
Nagging: Repetition
Negative Proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect.
Non Sequitur: Affirming the Consequent, Denying the Antecedent or Missing the Point.
Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented
Plurium Interrogationum: Many Questions
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium)
Repetition: Repeating something makes it more true.
Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
Secundum quid et simpliciter: In a Certain Respect and Simply
Sentimental fallacy: it would be more pleasant if; therefore it ought to be; therefore it is
Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary
Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
Splitting the Difference: False Compromise
Style over substance fallacy: occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument The idea is an attractive presentation makes it more right. The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion
Untestability: The theory which explains cannot be tested
Weak Analogy: False Analogy