Either\/Or Reasoning<\/strong><\/p>\nAlso: False Dilemma, All or Nothing Thinking; False Dichotomy, Black\/White Fallacy, False Binary<\/p>\n
A fallacy of logos that falsely offers only two possible options even though a broad range of possible alternatives, variations, and combinations are always readily available. E.g., \u2018Either you are 100% Simon Straightarrow or you are as queer as a three dollar bill\u2013it\u2019s as simple as that and there\u2019s no middle ground!\u2019 Or, \u2018Either you\u2019re in with us all the way or you\u2019re a hostile and must be destroyed!\u00a0 What\u2019s it gonna be?\u2019\u00a0 Or, if your performance is anything short of perfect, you consider yourself an abject failure. Also applies to falsely contrasting one option or case to another that is not really opposed, e.g., falsely opposing \u2018Black Lives Matter\u2019 to \u2018Blue Lives Matter\u2019 when in fact not a few police officers are themselves African American, and African Americans and police are not (or ought not to be!) natural enemies. Or, falsely posing a choice of either helping needy American veterans or helping needy foreign refugees, when in fact in today\u2019s United States there are ample resources available to easily do both should we care to do so.\u00a0<\/p>\n
See also, Overgeneralization.<\/p>\n
Equivocation<\/strong><\/p>\nThe fallacy of deliberately failing to define one\u2019s terms, or knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand. (E.g., President Bill Clinton stating that he did not have sexual relations with \u2018that woman,\u2019 meaning no sexual penetration, knowing full well that the audience will understand his statement as \u2018I had no sexual contact of any kind with that woman.\u2019) This is a corruption of the argument from logos, and a tactic often used in American jurisprudence.\u00a0 Historically, this referred to a tactic used during the Reformation-era religious wars in Europe, when people were forced to swear loyalty to one or another side and did as demanded via \u2018equivocation,\u2019\u00a0 i.e., \u2018When I solemnly swore true faith and allegiance to the King I really meant to King Jesus, King of Kings, and not to the evil usurper squatting on the throne today.\u2019 This latter form of fallacy is excessively rare today when the swearing of oaths has become effectively meaningless except as obscenity or as speech formally subject to perjury penalties in legal or judicial settings.<\/p>\n
The Eschatological Fallacy<\/strong><\/p>\nThe ancient fallacy of arguing, \u2018This world is coming to an end, so\u2026\u2019\u00a0 Popularly refuted by the observation that \u2018Since the world is coming to an end you won\u2019t need your life savings anyhow, so why not give it all to me?\u2019<\/p>\n
Esoteric Knowledge<\/strong><\/p>\nAlso: Esoteric Wisdom; Gnosticism; Inner Truth; the Inner Sanctum; Need to Know<\/p>\n
A fallacy from logos and ethos, that there is some knowledge reserved only for the Wise, the Holy or the Enlightened, (or those with proper Security Clearance), things that the masses cannot understand and do not deserve to know, at least not until they become wiser, more trusted or more \u2018spiritually advanced.\u2019\u00a0 The counterpart of this fallacy is that of Obscurantism <\/strong>(also Obscurationism, or Willful Ignorance), that (almost always said in a basso profundo voice) \u2018There are some things that we mere mortals must never seek to know!\u2019 E.g., \u2018Scientific experiments that violate the privacy of the marital bed and expose\u00a0 the deep and private mysteries of human sexual behavior to the harsh light of science are obscene, sinful and morally evil. There are some things that we as humans are simply not meant to know!\u2019 For the opposite of this latter, see the \u2018Plain Truth Fallacy.\u2019<\/p>\nSee also, Argumentum ad Mysteriam.<\/p>\n
Essentializing<\/strong><\/p>\nA fallacy of logos that proposes a person or thing \u2018is what it is and that\u2019s all that it is,\u2019 and at its core will always be the way it is right now (E.g., \u2018All terrorists are monsters, and will still be terrorist monsters even if they live to be 100,\u2019 or \u201dThe poor you will always have with you,\u2019 so any effort to eliminate poverty is pointless.\u2019). Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that something is a certain way \u2018by nature,\u2019 an empty claim that no amount of proof can refute. (E.g., \u2018Americans are cold and greedy by nature,\u2019 or \u2018Women are naturally better cooks than men.\u2019) See also \u2018Default Bias.\u2019\u00a0 The opposite of this is Relativizing,<\/strong> the typically postmodern fallacy of blithely dismissing any and all arguments against one\u2019s standpoint by shrugging one\u2019s shoulders and responding \u2018 Whatever\u2026, I don\u2019t feel like arguing about it;\u2019 \u2018It all depends\u2026;\u2019 \u2018That\u2019s your opinion; everything\u2019s relative;\u2019 or falsely invoking Einstein\u2019s Theory of Relativity, Heisenberg\u2019s Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Weirdness or the Theory of Multiple Universes in order to confuse, mystify or \u2018refute\u2019 an opponent.<\/p>\nSee also, \u2018Red Herring\u2019 and\u00a0 \u2018Appeal to Nature.\u2019<\/p>\n
The Etymological Fallacy<\/strong><\/p>\nAlso: \u2018The Underlying Meaning\u2019<\/p>\n
A fallacy of logos, drawing false conclusions from the (most often long-forgotten) linguistic origins of a current word, or the alleged meanings or associations of that word in another language. E.g., \u2018As used in physics, electronics and electrical engineering the term \u2018hysteresis\u2019 is grossly sexist since it originally came from the Greek word for \u2018uterus\u2019 or \u2018womb.\u201d\u00a0 Or, \u2018I refuse to eat fish! Don\u2019t you know that the French word for \u2018fish\u2019 is \u2018poisson,\u2019 which looks just like the English word \u2018poison\u2019? And doesn\u2019t that suggest something to you?\u2019 Famously, postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida played on this fallacy at great length in his (1968) \u2018Plato\u2019s Pharmacy.\u2019<\/p>\n
The Excluded Middle<\/strong><\/p>\nA corrupted argument from logos that proposes that since a little of something is good, more must be better (or that if less of something is good, none at all is even better). E.g., \u2018If eating an apple a day is good for you, eating an all-apple diet is even better!\u2019 or \u2018If a low fat diet prolongs your life, a no-fat diet should make you live forever!\u2019\u00a0 An opposite of this fallacy is that of Excluded Outliers<\/strong>, where one arbitrarily discards evidence, examples or results that disprove one\u2019s standpoint by simply describing them as \u2018Weird,\u2019 \u2018Outliers,\u2019 or \u2018Atypical.\u2019 See also, \u2018The Big \u2018But\u2019 Fallacy.\u2019 Also opposite is the Middle of the Road Fallacy <\/strong>(also, Falacia ad Temperantiam; \u2018The Politics of the Center;\u2019 Marginalization of the Adversary), where one demonstrates the \u2018reasonableness\u2019 of one\u2019s own standpoint (no matter how extreme) not on its own merits, but solely or mainly by presenting it as the only \u2018moderate\u2019 path among two or more obviously unacceptable extreme alternatives.\u00a0 E.g., anti-Communist scholar Charles Roig (1979) notes that Vladimir Lenin successfully argued for Bolshevism in Russia as the only available \u2018moderate\u2019 middle path between bomb-throwing Nihilist terrorists on the ultra-left and a corrupt and hated Czarist autocracy on the right. As Texas politician and humorist Jim Hightower famously declares in an undated quote, \u2018The middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos.\u2019<\/p>\nThe \u2018F-Bomb\u2019 <\/strong><\/p>\nAlso: Cursing; Obscenity; Profanity<\/p>\n
An adolescent fallacy of pathos, attempting to defend or strengthen one\u2019s argument with gratuitous, unrelated sexual, obscene, vulgar, crude or profane language when such language does nothing to make an argument stronger, other than perhaps to create a sense of identity with certain young male \u2018urban\u2019 audiences. This fallacy also includes adding gratuitous sex scenes or \u2018adult\u2019 language to an otherwise unrelated novel or movie, sometimes simply to avoid the dreaded \u2018G\u2019 rating. Related to this fallacy is the Salacious Fallacy<\/strong>, falsely attracting attention to and thus potential agreement with one\u2019s argument by inappropriately sexualizing it, particularly connecting it to some form of sex that is perceived as deviant, perverted or prohibited (E.g., Arguing against Bill Clinton\u2019s presidential legacy by continuing to wave Monica\u2019s Blue Dress, or against Donald Trump\u2019s presidency by obsessively highlighting his past boasting about genital groping). Historically, this dangerous fallacy was deeply implicated with the crime of lynching, in which false, racist accusations against a Black or minority victim were almost always salacious in nature, and the sensation involved was successfully used to whip up public emotion to a murderous pitch.<\/p>\nSee also, Red Herring.<\/p>\n
The False Analogy<\/strong><\/p>\nThe fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. E.g., \u2018Just like an alley cat needs to prowl, a normal adult can\u2019t be tied down to one single lover.\u2019 The opposite of this fallacy is the Sui Generis Fallacy<\/strong> (also, Differance), a postmodern stance that rejects the validity of analogy and of inductive reasoning altogether because any given person, place, thing or idea under consideration is \u2018sui generis\u2019 i.e., different and unique, in a class unto itself.\u00a0<\/p>\nFinish the Job<\/strong><\/p>\nThe dangerous contemporary fallacy, often aimed at a lesser-educated or working-class audience, that an action or standpoint (or the continuation of that action or standpoint) may not be questioned or discussed because there is \u2018a job to be done\u2019 or finished, falsely assuming \u2018jobs\u2019 are meaningless but never to be questioned. Sometimes those involved internalize (\u2018buy into\u2019) the \u2018job\u2019 and make the task a part of their own ethos.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Example: \u2018Ours is not to reason why \/ Ours is but to do or die.\u2019) Related to this is the \u2018Just a Job\u2019<\/strong> fallacy. (E.g., \u2018How can torturers stand to look at themselves in the mirror? But I guess it\u2019s OK because for them it\u2019s just a job like any other, the job that they get paid to do.\u2019)<\/p>\nSee also \u2018Blind Loyalty,\u2019 \u2018The Soldiers\u2019 Honor Fallacy\u2019 and the \u2018Argument from Inertia.\u2019<\/p>\n
The Free Speech Fallacy<\/strong><\/p>\nThe infantile fallacy of responding to challenges to one\u2019s statements and standpoints by whining, \u2018It\u2019s a free country, isn\u2019t it?\u00a0 I can say anything I want to!\u2019 A contemporary case of this fallacy is the \u2018Safe Space,\u2019<\/strong> or \u2018Safe Place,\u2019 <\/strong>where it is not allowed to refute, challenge or even discuss another\u2019s beliefs because that might be too uncomfortable or \u2018triggery\u2019 for emotionally fragile individuals. E.g., \u2018All I told him was, \u2018Jesus loves the little children,\u2019 but then he turned around and asked me \u2018But what about birth defects?\u2019 That\u2019s mean.<\/em> I think I\u2019m going to cry!\u2019 Prof. Bill Hart Davidson (2017) notes that \u2018Ironically, the most strident calls for \u2018safety\u2019 come from those who want us to issue protections for discredited ideas. Things that science doesn\u2019t support AND that have destroyed lives \u2013 things like the inherent superiority of one race over another. Those ideas wither under demands for evidence. They *are* unwelcome. But let\u2019s be clear: they are unwelcome because they have not survived the challenge of scrutiny.\u2019 Ironically, in contemporary America \u2018free speech\u2019 has often become shorthand for freedom of racist, offensive or even neo-Nazi expression, ideological trends that once in power typically quash free speech.\u00a0Additionally, a (201) scientific study has found that, in fact, \u2018people think harder and produce better political arguments when their views are challenged<\/a>\u2018 and not artificially protected without challenge.<\/p>\nThe Fundamental Attribution Error<\/strong> <\/p>\nAlso: Self Justification<\/p>\n
A corrupt argument from ethos, this fallacy occurs as a result of observing and comparing behavior. \u2018You assume that the bad behavior of others is caused by character flaws and foul dispositions while your behavior is explained by the environment.\u00a0 So, for example, I get up in the morning at 10 a.m.\u00a0 I say it is because my neighbors party until 2 in the morning (situation) but I say that the reason why you do it is that you are lazy. Interestingly, it is more common in individualistic societies where we value self volition. Collectivist societies tend to look at the environment more.\u00a0(It happens there, too, but it is much less common.)\u2019\u00a0 [Thanks to scholar Joel Sax for this!]\u00a0The obverse of this fallacy is Self Deprecation <\/strong>(also Self Debasement),<\/strong> where, out of either false humility or a genuine lack of self-esteem, one deliberately puts oneself down, most often in hopes of attracting denials, gratifying compliments, and praise.<\/p>\nGaslighting<\/strong><\/p>\nA recently-prominent, vicious fallacy of logic, denying or invalidating a person\u2019s own knowledge and experiences by deliberately twisting or distorting known facts, memories, scenes, events and evidence in order to disorient a vulnerable opponent and to make him or her doubt his\/her sanity. E.g., \u2018Who are you going to believe?\u00a0 Me, or your own eyes?\u2019 Or, \u2018You claim you found me in bed with her<\/em>? Think again!\u00a0 You\u2019re crazy! You seriously need to see a shrink.\u2019 A very common, though cruel instance of Gaslighting that seems to have been particularly familiar among mid-20th century generations is the fallacy of Emotional Invalidation<\/strong>, questioning, after the fact, the <\/strong>reality or \u2018validity\u2019 of\u00a0 affective states, either another\u2019s or one\u2019s own. E.g., \u2018Sure, I made it happen from beginning to end, but it wasn\u2019t me<\/em> doing it, it was just my stupid hormones betraying me.\u2019 Or, \u2018You didn\u2019t really mean it when you said you \u2018hate\u2019 Mommy. Now take a time-out and you\u2019ll feel better.\u2019 Or, \u2018No, you\u2019re not really in love; it\u2019s just infatuation or \u2018puppy love.\u201d The fallacy of \u2018Gaslighting\u2019 is named after British playwright Patrick Hamilton\u2019s 1938 stage play \u2018Gas Light,\u2019 also known as \u2018Angel Street.\u2019\u00a0 See also, Blind Loyalty, \u2018The Big Brain\/Little Brain Fallacy,\u2019 The Affective Fallacy, and \u2018Alternative Truth.\u2019<\/p>\nGuilt by Association<\/strong><\/p>\nThe fallacy of trying to refute or condemn someone\u2019s standpoint, arguments, or actions by evoking the negative ethos of those with whom the speaker is identified or of a group, party, religion, or race to which he or she belongs or was once associated with. A form of Ad Hominem Argument, e.g., \u2018Don\u2019t listen to her. She\u2019s a Republican so you can\u2019t trust anything she says,\u2019 or \u2018Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?\u2019\u00a0 An extreme instance of this is the <\/strong>Machiavellian \u2018For my enemies, nothing\u2019 Fallacy<\/strong>, where real or perceived \u2018enemies\u2019 are by definition always<\/em> wrong and must be conceded nothing, not even the time of day, e.g., \u2018He\u2019s a Republican, so even if he said the sky is blue I wouldn\u2019t believe him.\u2019<\/p>\nThe Half Truth<\/strong><\/p>\nAlso: Card Stacking, Stacking the Deck, Incomplete Information<\/p>\n
A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of consciously selecting, collecting and sharing only that evidence that supports one\u2019s own standpoint, telling the strict truth but deliberately minimizing or omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger picture and support a false conclusion.(E.g. \u2018The truth is that Bangladesh is one of the world\u2019s fastest-growing countries and can boast of a young, ambitious and hard-working population, a family-positive culture, a delightful, warm climate of tropical beaches and swaying palms where it never snows, low cost medical and dental care, a vibrant faith tradition and a multitude of places of worship, an exquisite, world-class spicy local curry cuisine and a swinging entertainment scene. Taken together, all these solid facts clearly prove that Bangladesh is one of the world\u2019s most desirable places for young families to live, work and raise a family.\u2019)<\/p>\n
See also, Confirmation Bias.<\/p>\n
Hero-Busting<\/strong> <\/p>\nAlso: \u2018The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good\u2019<\/p>\n
A postmodern fallacy of ethos under which, since nothing and nobody in this world is perfect there are not and have never been any heroes: Washington and Jefferson held slaves, Lincoln was (by our contemporary standards) a racist, Karl Marx sexually exploited his family\u2019s own young live-in domestic worker and got her pregnant, Martin Luther King Jr. had an eye for women too, Lenin condemned feminism, the Mahatma drank his own urine (ugh!), Pope Francis is wrong on abortion, capitalism, same-sex marriage and women\u2019s ordination, Mother Teresa loved suffering and was wrong on just about everything else too, etc., etc\u00a0 Also applies to the now near-universal political tactic of ransacking everything an opponent has said, written or done since infancy in order to find something<\/em> to misinterpret or condemn (and we all have something!<\/em>). An early example of this latter tactic is deftly described in Robert Penn Warren\u2019s classic (1946) novel, All the King\u2019s Men<\/em>. This is the opposite of the \u2018Heroes All\u2019 fallacy, below. The \u2018Hero Busting\u2019 fallacy has also been selectively employed at the service of the Identity Fallacy<\/strong> (see below) to falsely \u2018prove\u2019 that \u2018you cannot trust anyone\u2019 but a member of \u2018our\u2019 identity-group since everyone else<\/em>, even the so-called \u2018heroes\u2019 or \u2018allies\u2019 of other groups, are all<\/em> racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or hate \u2018us.\u2019\u00a0 E.g., In 1862 Abraham Lincoln said he was willing to settle the U.S. Civil War either with or without freeing the slaves if it would preserve the Union, thus \u2018conclusively proving\u2019 that all whites are viciously racist at heart and that African Americans must do for self and never trust any of \u2018them,\u2019 not even those who claim to be allies.<\/p>\nHeroes All<\/strong> <\/p>\nAlso: \u2018Everybody\u2019s a Winner\u2019<\/p>\n
The contemporary fallacy that everyone<\/em> is above average or extraordinary. A corrupted argument from pathos (not wanting anyone to lose or to feel bad). Thus,