In daily conversations, we come across many logical fallacies. Discussions and debates often lead nowhere, because the underlying logic is already wrong. Looking for better explanations or more evidence is a good approach, and another one is attacking the problems in your opponents position. The following list briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:
You don’t need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds. – Robert A. Wilson
- ad hominem: Latin for “to the person.” An arguer who uses the ad hominem attack aims at the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, calling into question the opponents character, offensive remarks, or anger.
- appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn’t exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.
- argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone’s beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like “all,” “everyone,” “everything,” “absolute,” or “nobody.” They indicate generalizations that are mostly wrong.
- appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not require logic or evidence. Faith arguments depend on irrational thought and produce intransigence.
- appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.
- argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an “expert” or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it. Also: Look at the sources yourself! This is always a good idea, if you have time or it is important enough.
- argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way.
- argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don’t believe in God, you’ll burn in hell)
- argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument that exploits other people’s ignorance. (e.g: If you don’t know anything about physics, I can tell you many things about it.)
- argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental or popular feelings rather than facts and reasons.
- bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must be true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.
- begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship G