Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,627
edits
Changes
→External links
A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.
A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.
Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument. That is, an informally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which may be true or false, but which the fallacious argument does not prove; a formally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which is always false.
Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[Deduction|deductive arguments]], and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[Principle of induction|inductive arguments]], and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.
There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.
There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.
*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true
*Therefore, P is true
For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.
For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." Another example: "Might makes right." Or, the threat of persecution, rebellion, revolt or war.
This appeal is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.
See [[Trial by combat]].
===Appeal to pity===
===Appeal to pity===
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P
For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the conclusion ("I was racing to see my wife").
For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the conclusion ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the premise ("I was racing to see my wife").
Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.
Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labor is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.
===Appeal to Consequences===
===Appeal to Consequences===
* Therefore, evolution is false
* Therefore, evolution is false
This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:
This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true
* Therefore, evolution is true
This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.
This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected in academic circles, this does not mean that evolution is correct.
To use a more extreme example, but one doubtless familiar from everyday life, the mere fact that a child's belief in [[Santa Claus]] can have positive consequences does not prove that Santa Claus exists.
To use another example often encountered in the real world, adherents of belief systems such as [[Islam]] tout the benefits of converting to such belief systems. However, such benefits, even if real, do not prove that those belief systems are true; instead, they could arise from the conversion experience itself.
A particular form of the appeal to consequences is the [[appeal to personal interest]], which is fallacy of appealing to the personal likes and interests (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted, when those personal likes and interests are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.
A particular form of the appeal to consequences is the [[appeal to personal interest]], which is fallacy of appealing to the personal likes and interests (preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc.) of others in order to have an argument accepted, when those personal likes and interests are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.
*Person A is Q
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false
*Therefore, P is false
====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you too") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:
*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect
*Therefore, Person A's argument is incorrect
For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.
For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company. Still another example, often seen in international politics, is [[whataboutism]].
===="False Causality" ====
===="False Causality" ====
===Genetic fallacy===
===Genetic fallacy===
{{main|Affirming the consequent}}
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:
*If P then Q
*If P then Q
*P is false
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false
*Therefore, Q is false
Formally, the error arises in confusing "If P, then Q" with "If and only if P, then Q."
Formally, the error arises in confusing "If P, then Q" with "If and only if P, then Q."
===Proof by numbers===
===Proof by numbers===
{{main|Argumentum ad populum}}
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:
:Therefore P is true
:Therefore P is true
"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.
"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the Roman gods, but they were proven wrong.
The converse argument holds that because a position is unpopular and controversial, even [[Guilt by Association#The Galileo gambit|ridiculed, denounced and persecuted by the majority]], and has been proven by the majority to be in error, that that position is ''[[ipso facto]]'' (by the fact) proven to be correct and true. For example: [[Elitism]], [[Racism]], [[Sect]]s, [[Cult]]s, [[International Flat Earth Society]], [[LGBTQIAPK]] supporters.
===Special pleading===
===Special pleading===
*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Person A cites R circumstance, [[distinction without a difference|unrelated to P or Q]]
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q
*Therefore, Person A is not subject to Q
For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.
For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.
===Argument from silence===
===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantiam'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false
*Therefore, Q is false
For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".
For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".
This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence. Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed. For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true. In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.
This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence." However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence. Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed. For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true. In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.
Another example from history. Assertions of evidence of corruption of Christian doctrine and [[Great Apostasy|apostasy]] from the faith is seen by Protestant and Fundamentalist [[Apologetics|apologists]] in the evident contrast of the 16th century doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which the Reformers assert was original Christianity, against the clearly "Catholic doctrines" in the [[Ante-Nicene Fathers]] which refute them. The utter historical silence about any fundamental [[paradigm shift]] in doctrine after the first century is due to a total lack of any supporting extant evidence of Protestant or Mormon theology in any of the writings of the first four centuries of Christianity by any of the known heretics and sects. This very fact is argued by Protestants and Mormons as sure and certain evidence that a monstrous apostasy must have occurred, because there is no evidence that it ever did, and no evidence of their unmistakable doctrines can be found, leading them to the conclusion that there was a massive [[cover up]]. (This is also a form of [[circular reasoning]]. Compare [[Memory hole]] and [[Revisionism]].)
More generally, assertion of a fact coupled with total absence of evidence does not prove there was a concerted effort involving total removal of the evidence supporting the assertion. The compelling weight of conclusive evidence supporting ''absence of any evidence of a removal of all evidence'' is strong evidence that no evidence was removed. Absence (silence) of evidence is not proof of evidence erased or made absent (silenced). Conclusive evidence of absence is absence of conclusive evidence. Compare [[Abductive reasoning]] and [[Confirmation bias]].
A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''" For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]]. Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].
A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''" For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]]. Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].
The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>
The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>
====Kafka trap====
A Kafka trap (named after Austrian writer Franz Kafka, author of ''The Trial'') is a form of argument from ignorance which involves someone making an accusation against an opponent (e.g. sexism or racism), then when the opponent denies the accusation, the accuser uses the denial or any attempt by the opponent to defend him/herself as "proof" of the opponent's "guilt" despite lack of evidence by the accuser.<ref>[http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122 Kafkatrapping]</ref> This sophistical rhetorical device is a favorite tactic of [[social justice warrior]]s and other leftists against their ideological opponents and operates strictly on presumption without evidence by the leftists who use this tactic.
===False cause===
===False cause===
====Texas sharpshooter fallacy====
====Texas sharpshooter fallacy====
: ''Main article: [[Sharpshooter fallacy]]''
Another form of false cause is the '''Texas sharpshooter fallacy'''. The name comes from a failed marksman who shoots at a barn, draws a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes, and proclaims himself to be a skilled marksman. In the fallacy, a cluster of data points is assumed to be caused by an apparent cause at that location. The assumption is fallacious because the clustering could be random, or there could be some other cause.<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy]</ref> Other ways of explaining the fallacy are that the hypothesis is constructed after the fact to conform to the very data that are used to "test" the hypothesis<ref>[http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~tiseda/works/Mayo-2.html Severe Testing]</ref> and that the same data are used to formulate and test the hypothesis.<ref>[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3073771#post3073771 Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal]</ref>
Another form of false cause is the '''Texas sharpshooter fallacy'''. The name comes from a failed marksman who shoots at a barn, draws a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes, and proclaims himself to be a skilled marksman. In the fallacy, a cluster of data points is assumed to be caused by an apparent cause at that location. The assumption is fallacious because the clustering could be random, or there could be some other cause.<ref>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy]</ref> Other ways of explaining the fallacy are that the hypothesis is constructed after the fact to conform to the very data that are used to "test" the hypothesis<ref>[http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~tiseda/works/Mayo-2.html Severe Testing]</ref> and that the same data are used to formulate and test the hypothesis.<ref>[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3073771#post3073771 Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal]</ref>
====Equating correlation with causation====
: ''Main article: [[Correlation is not causation]]''
Yet another form of false cause is '''equating correlation with causation'''. An often cited example is "As sales of ice cream rise, so do reports of shark attacks." Neither one causes the other, whether or not there is a correlation; instead, they are both associated with summer.
===Non sequitur===
===Non sequitur===
*P
*P
*Therefore R is true
*Therefore, R is true
For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."
For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."
*P says Q
*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true
*Therefore, Q is true
A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.
A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well. This becomes fallacious if the "notable scientist" has never considered alternatives which also provide the answers to the asked questions.
*Some P are Q
*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q
*Therefore, R is Q
For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".
For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".
===Analogy===
{{main|Fallacy of analogy}}
The fallacy of analogy argues that because one thing resembles another in some aspects, they must resemble each other in another aspect. In its most extreme form, it argues that a superficial resemblance proves identity, that because they look like the same thing they are in fact the same. In general, an argument by analogy takes the following form:
*A is like B (they share properties X, Y, and Z).
*B also has property Q
*Therefore, A has property Q as well.
The strength of such an argument depends upon the strength of the analogy. If A and B have more differences than shared properties, the argument is weakened. It may also be true that A is like B in many ways, but still differs from B in terms of the specific property Q. If the analogy is too weak or irrelevant to the conclusion that is drawn, then a fallacy of weak analogy has been committed. An analogy itself is never true or false; it is only weak or strong.
For example: "The erecting of statues and images by [[Paganism|pagans]] was an act of [[idolatry]], therefore the erecting of statues is an act of idolatry."
===Contradiction===
===Contradiction===
{{Main|Contradiction}}
A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:
A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:
*P is true
*P is true
Often the argument is simply [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance|repeated over and over]], and no evidence for support is given. Statements beginning with expressions such as "It goes without saying that ..." or "Everyone knows ..." are commonly proofs by assertion.
Often the argument is simply [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance|repeated over and over]], and no evidence for support is given. Statements beginning with [[weasel words|expressions]] such as "It goes without saying that ..." or "Everyone knows ..." are commonly proofs by assertion.
Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.
Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.
====Circular reasoning====
====Circular reasoning====
{{Main|Circular reasoning}}
[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.
[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.
====Manufacturing facts from a theory====
====Manufacturing facts from a theory====
Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact. In law, it is called assuming facts not in evidence. It should not be confused with formulating a prediction to test a hypothesis
Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact. In law, it is called assuming facts not in evidence. It should not be confused with formulating a prediction to test a hypothesis. [[Christian In Name Only|False Christians]] often engage in this fallacy by making baseless assertions as to what God wants that may have no basis in the [[Bible]] or even contradict it, but that conveniently support whatever those false Christians would have wanted to believe anyway.
In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.
In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Q and R are mutually exclusive
*Q and R are mutually exclusive
*Therefore theory A is wrong
*Therefore, theory A is wrong
For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
===Straw man===
===Straw man===
{{Main|Straw man fallacy}}
A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:
A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. Typically, the fallacy involves distorting what a person actually said to make it superficially similar but easier to disprove. A straw man argument follows the form:
*If P then Q
*Person A says P.
*Person A says P
*Person B says that person A says P', which is not the same as P.
*Therefore Q
*Not P'.
*Therefore, not P.
Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:
Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:
===Tautology===
===Tautology===
{{Main|tautology}}
A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτο-''' ''tauto-'', "the same") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of the same." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.
A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτο-''' ''tauto-'', "the same") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of the same." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.
For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."
For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."
'''Un'''equivocal means leaving no doubt about the exact meaning of what is said, being completely clear, allowing no misunderstanding.
===Moving the Goalposts===
===Moving the Goalposts===
For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.
For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.
==References==
== Atheism and logical fallacies ==
*[[Atheism and logical fallacies]]
*[[Atheism and logic]]
==See Also==
==See also==
* [[Atheism and logical fallacies]]
* [[Atheism and logical fallacies]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[Specious reasoning]]
Debate:
Debate:
* [[Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
* [[Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
==External Links==
==External links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp. 201-218 (1996)
* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp. 201–218 (1996)
Taxonomy of fallacies:
*[https://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonnew.htm Taxonomy of Logical Fallacies], Fallacy Files
==References==
<references/>
{{Liberalism}}
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]