Fallacies are arguments that may sound logical, but are not.
When you look at some of the examples below, you may see some with
conclusions you agree with and some you don't.
But the truth, in
the empirical sense, is not what is at issue: What these examples
are all about is logical argument. All these examples are
illogical and based in fallacious thinking.
For example, one fallacy is called "sweeping generalization."
Someone may argue: "That is the richest sorority on campus; so
Sue, who belongs to that sorority must be one of the richest women on
campus." Well, Sue may be one of the richest; or she may be one
of the poorest. It doesn't matter whether the conclusion is true
or not in the literal sense. The argument is illogical. It
means nothing at all to say that, if a group has a certain quality,
then a member of the group must have that quality, too.
Probably
everyone has been guilty of inadvertently using them. Most of us
fall for them even if we know better. And there are some people
(propagandists,
advertisers, and many politicians) who use them all the time. It
would be wise to become familiar with the fallacies in order to protect
ourselves from the unscrupulous. But by no means is this list
meant
to
encourage the use of
fallacies!
Affirmation of the consequent: "A implies B, B is
true, therefore A is true" This is confusing, sometimes, because
it looks so much like good logic: "A implies B, A is true,
therefore B is true," known as Modus Ponens or affirmation of the
antecedent, is one of the basic valid syllogisms. But affirmation
of the consequent is definitely a fallacy:
"If the universe had been created by a
supernatural being, we would
see order and organization everywhere. And we do see order, not
randomness
-- so it's clear that the universe had a creator."
No: The order
could have some other origin.
"If there is indeed a collective
unconscious, then we will find that
the mythologies of all the world’s cultures have profound
commonalities.
And indeed they do -- therefore, there must be a collective
unconscious!"
No: There may be all sorts of other reasons for mythologies to
have
commonalities.
This is the converse of denial of the antecedent (below).
A slight variation of affirming the consequent is converting a
conditional:
"If A then B, therefore if B then A". This fallacy is similar to
the affirmation of the consequent, but
phrased
as a conditional statement.
"When educational standards are lowered,
the quality of shows on
television
worsens. So if we see television getting worse over the next few years,
we'll know that our educational standards are still falling."
No: The worsening of television could have other causes.
"If the latest drugs work well, we will
see a great improvement n
mental
health. So, if mental health improves, we will know that these
drugs
were effective!"
No again! Mental health may improve for
other reasons.
Denial of the antecedent: "A implies B, A is
false,
therefore B is false" This is the converse of the fallacy of
affirmation of the
consequent. It too looks like good logic: "A implies B, B
is false, therefore A is false," which is called Modus Tollens, or
denial of the consequent. Denial of the antecedent, on the other
hand, is illogical:
"If the God of the Bible appeared to me,
personally, that would
certainly
prove that Christianity was true. But God has never appeared to me, so
the Bible must be a work of fiction."
Nope: God may not
appear to you even if the Bible were true.
"If there were such a thing as penis
envy, we would expect women to
be easier on their sons than on their daughters. But penis envy
is,
of course, not real -- so naturally women do not treat their sons
better
than their daughters."
No: They may still do so, just for
other reasons.
There is also a version that says “if A, then B, therefore, if not
A,
then not B.”
“If you have a PhD in psychology, you
must be pretty knowledgeable
in
the field. Therefore, if you don’t have the PhD, you must be
abysmally
ignorant of psychology.”
No: Having that PhD may mean you have knowledge, but knowledge
hardly depends on a degree.
Fallacy of composition: the idea that a property shared
by a number of individual items, is also shared by a collection of
those
items; or that a property of the parts of an object, must also be a
property
of the whole thing.
"This new truck is made entirely of
lightweight aluminum components,
and is therefore very lightweight."
In fact, a truck is composed of so
many “lightweight” parts, it is bound to be far from lightweight
itself!
"A ton of feathers should weigh less than
a ton of lead!"
No: In fact, they weigh the same - a ton. Hope you
didn't fall for that one!
"Since neurons are either excitatory or
inhibitory, the brain itself
must have excitatory or inhibitory states."
A variation of composition is the genetic fallacy:
Drawing
a conclusion about the goodness or badness of something on the basis of
the goodness or badness of the thing’s origin. (Not actually ad
hominem -- see below -- but often listed there)
"The
medicine
made from that plant must be poisonous, because that plant is
poisonous."
"The humanitarian work we do may well
come out of our need to look
good
in front of our fellow man. So humanitarian work is basically
egotistical!"
The opposite of the fallacy of composition is the fallacy of
division:
assuming that a property of some thing must apply to its parts;or that
a property of a collection of items is shared by each item.
“Humans are conscious and are made of
cells; therefore, each cell
has
consciousness”
"You are studying at a rich college.
Therefore you must be rich."
"Since the team could solve the problem
so easily, I assume that
each
member of the team could do it just as well alone."
And a fallacy that totally confuses parts and wholes: the fallacy
of the undistributed middle: Suggesting that things are in
some
way similar, but not actually specifing how. A is a kind of C, B is a
kind
of C, therefore, A is B
"Cats are a form of animal based on
carbon chemistry, dogs are a
form
of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs and cats basically
identical?"
“They’re both students, so I can expect
the same from both.”
"Since they are both schizophrenics, they
should both have the same
reaction to this new medication."
Sweeping generalization (The fallacy of accident,
dicto simpliciter): Applying a general rule to special
case;
A general rule is applied to a particular situation, but the features
of
that particular situation mean the rule is inapplicable.
"Christians generally dislike atheists.
You are a Christian, so you
must dislike atheists."
Sweeping generalization includes a common misunderstanding the
nature
of statistics:
“The majority of people in the United
States die in hospitals, so
stay
out of them.”
"Men are statistically more aggressive
than women. Therefore,
I, a male, must be more aggressive than you, a female."
Hasty generalization is the converse of sweeping
generalization:
A special case is used as the basis of a general rule. A general
rule is created by examining only a few specific cases which aren't
representative
of all possible cases.
"I know a union representative and he's a
terrible person. I
wouldn't
trust any of them."
"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian.
Therefore all
Christians
are insincere."
"This schizophrenic has paranoid
delusions. It stands to
reason
that they all do."
Hasty generalization includes another common misunderstanding of
statistics
called the statistics of small numbers:
“My parents smoked all their lives and they
never got
cancer.”
"The five subjects in our experiment
responded well to our
intervention.
We can therefore recommend the procedure to everyone."
Another version is called observational selection: pointing
out
favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. For
example,
at any gambling institution, a great deal of fuss is paid to those who
win, while those who lose are quietly encouraged to sneak out the
back.
This way, winning seems much more likely that it is!
"All of these people who prayed for a
cure survived their
disease.
Prayer is clearly to be recommended!"
And observational selection includes anecdotal evidence:
“Just last week I read about a girl who
was dying of cancer. Her
whole
family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured. That
only proves the power of prayer!"
"Uncle Joe got over his rheumatism by
drinking his own urine!"
“Urban myths” are usually good examples!
Bifurcation ("black or white," excluded middle, false
dichotomy):
Presuming an either-or distinction. Suggesting that there are only two
alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can
exist.
Instead of black or white, we can have shades of gray... or even
rainbows
of colors!
"We must choose between safety and
freedom. And it is in the
nature
of good Americans to take the risk of freedom."
Must we
choose?
Can't we have both?
"A patient either gets better or they
don’t."
"Come on now-- is he or isn’t he
bipolar?"
Another form of bifurcation is considering only the extremes:
“He's either guilty or not guilty.”
Begging the question (petitio principii ). Assuming as
a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. Instead of offering
real
proof, we can just restate the conclusion we are supposed to come to,
and
hope the listener doesn't notice.
"Government ownership of public utilities
is dangerous, because it
is
socialistic."
But government ownership of public utilities is
socialism. You've just been told that it's dangerous because it
is
what it is.
“We must encourage our youth to worship
God to instill moral
behavior.”
But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?
Of
course not!
"Qualitative methods are essentially
worthless because they don’t
involve
measurement or statistics."
The most obvious form of begging the question is the circular
argument
(vicious cycle, circulus in demonstrando): Stating in one's proof that
which one is supposed to be proving.
"We know that God exists because the
Bible tells us so. And we know
that the Bible is true because it is the word of God."
"Your arguments against Freud are due to
your unresolved unconscious
conflicts."
"Your arguments against Skinner are due
to your conditioning."
"Your arguments against existentialism
are indicative of your
inauthenticity."
There’s also the appeal to faith:
Faith, by definition,
relies
on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on
irrational
thought.
"If you accept the Lord, you will
understand!"
"If you would only take Maslow at his
word, you would finally get
it!"
And the most common way to use begging the question is question-begging
epithets (loaded words, emotive language, etc.). Restating
the
conclusion in "hot" language:
"This criminal is charged with the
most vicious crime known to man."
Does it prove something, or
just
get the blood flowing?
Often hard to identify (and so very dangerous) is the ad hoc
argument:
Giving an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other
situations.
“I see that John’s cancer is in
remission.”
“Yes, our prayers have been answered!”
“But didn’t you pray for Susan, too, and look what happened to her.”
“I’m sure God had a special reason for taking her.”
"Those people who don’t follow the
expected pattern of
strong-mother/weak-father
leading to homosexuality are no doubt hiding their true orientation!"
Look out when people say “everything has a reason” or “God has a
purpose
for all of us.”
Complex question (loaded question, trick question, leading
question,
fallacy of interrogation, fallacy of presupposition):
Interrogative
form of begging the question (above). Ask a question that leads others
to believe that a previous question has been answered in a certain way.
"Answer yes or no: Did you ever
give up your evil ways?"
If you say yes, that tells us you had evil ways; if you say no, that
tells
us you still have them. What if you never had them?
“Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
"So, are you gay, or just in denial?"
"And when will you come out of the
closet?"
A variation on the complex question is the fallacy of many
questions
(plurium interrogationum) : This fallacy occurs when someone
demands
a simple (or simplistic) answer to a complex question.
"Yes or no: Is democracy ultimately
the best system of
government?"
Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of
something
which is untrue or not yet established.
"How would you explain the presence of
aliens on our planet?"
False cause (non causa pro causa, non sequitur): Something is
identified as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown
to be the cause. For example:
"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and
my headache disappeared.
So
God cured me of the headache."
"Artists often suffered from depression
as adolescents. So, if
you want your child to be a great artist, don’t put them on Prozac!"
The most common form of false cause is called post hoc ergo
propter
hoc: An inference or conclusion that does not follow from
established
premises or evidence. Assuming causal connections that haven't been
demonstrated.
The Latin phrase means "after this, therefore because of this."
"You should go to Harvard, because
Harvard graduates make more
money."
Or could it be that they had more money before they went?
“She got sick after she visited China, so
something in China caused
her sickness.”
Or could it be that she was sick prior to leaving for
China?
“There was an increase of births during
the full moon. Therefore,
full
moons cause birth rates to rise.”
A slight variation is cum hoc ergo propter hoc: Saying
that, because two events occur together, they must be causally related.
It's a fallacy because it ignores all the other possible causes of the
events.
"Literacy rates have steadily declined
since the advent of
television.
Clearly television viewing impedes learning."
"He started using drugs just about the
time he started seeing that
girl.
I knew she was a bad influence!"
A common statistical version of this is confusion of correlation
and causation: correlation cannot tell you anything about the
direction of causality. If X is powerfully correlated with Y, X
could
be the cause of Y, Y could be the cause of X, or (most likely)
something
else is the cause of both. Possibly, the relationship is
accidental!
“More chess players are men, therefore,
men make better chess
players
than women.”
"Far more women than men suffer from
depression. We can assume that
there is something about a woman’s physiology that leads to
depression."
(Often followed by an ad hoc argument: The women chess
masters must be lesbians; The men with
depression
must be effeminate!)
Missing the point (irrelevant thesis, ignoratio elenchi,
irrelevant
conclusion, ignoring the issue, befogging the issue, diversion, red
herring,
etc.). Demonstrating a point other than the one at issue.
Diverting
attention by changing the subject. Escaped convicts in Elizabethan
England
would smear themselves with rotten (red) herring to throw the dogs off
the scent.
"I fail to see why hunting should be
considered cruel when it gives
tremendous pleasure to many people and employment to even more."
So we should stop talking about cruelty and start talking about
pleasure
and employment?
“Christianity is the only true
religion: It has clearly been
of
great help to many people."
No matter how well he argues how much it
has
helped people, he will not have shown that Christian teachings are
true.
"It is very clear that we prescribe
psycho-active medications to
people
who don’t really need them. We should outlaw these drugs
altogether!"
One example of missing the point is the straw man: Creating
a false scenario and
then
attacking it. Misrepresenting someone else's position so that it
can be attacked more easily.
“Evolutionists think that everything came
about by random
chance.
How could that be?”
Most evolutionists think in terms of natural
selection
which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on
random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects
the
purpose of the argument.
"To summarize Freud, he believed that it
all boils down to
sex.
Let me show you why Freud is therefore full of crap!"
Another example is reification (hypostatization): when
people treat an abstract concept or hypothetical construct as if it
represented
a concrete event or physical entity. IQ tests are often presented
as actual measures of intelligence, for
example.
"What is consciousness? You can’t
find it anywhere in the
human
brain, so we must reject the concept."
And another example, the meaningless question:
“How high is up?”
"Up" describes a direction, not a measurable
entity.
“Does anything really exist?”
"How can we experience the collective
unconscious directly?"
A really tricky version of missing the point is the appeal to
logic
(argumentum
ad logicam ): This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a
proposition
is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a
fallacious
argument. Remember that fallacious arguments can arrive at true
conclusions.
"Take the fraction 16/64. Now,
cancelling a six on top and a six on
the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4."
"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six! Your math is
wrong:
16/64 does not equal 1/4!"
Yes it does, even though the math is wrong.
Very common are half truths (suppressed evidence): An
statement
usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for
an accurate description.
And one of the worst versions of missing the point is false
analogy:
An analogy or metaphor illustrates or elaborates; it doesn't prove
anything:
"The American Indian had to make way for
Western civilization; after
all,
you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."
Are the
lives and cultures of millions comparable to eggs? What does
making
omelettes have to do with history and morality?
"Since the mind is essentially a wet
computer, our task is to figure
out how we can best program it!"
There are many fallacies that involve the misuse of words.
Very common is special pleading: Here, we use a
double-standard
of words.
"The ruthless tactics of the enemy, his
fanatical, suicidal attacks
have been foiled by the stern measures of our commanders and the
devoted
self-sacrifice of our troops."
Are ruthless tactics different
from
stern measures? Fanatical, suicidal attacks from devoted
self-sacrifice? Journalists do this all the time!
"Ellis’s therapy is authoritarian and
aggressive!"
"Rogers’s therapy is laissez faire, even
lazy!"
This is not far from the fallacy of equivocation: Use
of
ambiguous words. A key word is used with two or more different meanings
in the same argument. Shifting the meaning of the words.
"What could be more affordable than free
software? But to make sure
that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must
place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely
redistributable."
One way to avoid this fallacy is to choose your terminology
carefully
before beginning the argument, and avoid words like "free" which have
many
meanings.
The "no true Scotsman..." fallacy: Suppose I assert
that
no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing
out
that your friend Angus likes sugar on his porridge. I then say "Ah,
yes,
but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." By
disparaging Angus's Scottishness, I
basically limit the meaning of the word "Scotsman."
“How can he do that to her if he loves
her?”
“Ah, but that’s not true love, see?”
"No caring
therapist would use methods like that!"
"No well-trained
scientist would come to those conclusions!"
"Christians turn the other cheek."
"But I've seen many Christians return violence for violence."
"Yes, but those aren't good Christians. They aren't even
real Christians at all!"
The previous example includes the use of accent -- changing
oral
stress within a sentence to alter the meaning.
“All men are created equal...”
implies that women are not.
“All men are created equal...” suggests that they don’t end
up equal.
An amusing misuse of words is amphiboly -- use of ambiguous
sentences.
“Two pizzas for one special price.” Two
for one? Or both
at the same “special” price?
Personal attack (argumentum ad hominem): Attacks the
person
instead of the argument. In personal attack, we ask the listener not to
consider the argument, but to consider where it is coming from:
"This theory about a new cure for cancer
has been introduced by a
man
known for his Marxist sympathies. I don't see why we should
extend
him the courtesy of our attention."
"You can’t trust Freud -- he used
cocaine!"
"You can’t trust Adler -- he was a
socialist!"
"You can’t trust Horney -- she suffered
from depression!"
But Marxists, cocaine users, socialists, and depressed people can be
right!
Then there’s the abusive form of the personal attack:
"You claim that atheists can be moral --
yet I happen to know that
you
abandoned your wife and children."
"You don’t agree with
experimentation? I’ve read that you were
never able to get any of your own research published!"
A little more clever is the circumstantial form of the
personal
attack:
"It is perfectly acceptable to kill
animals for food. Since you are
wearing leather shoes, I am sure you won’t argue with that."
"You don’t agree with Rogers -- yet I
notice you use reflection in
your
own practice!"
Very damaging is poisoning the well: The personal
attack
can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion such as
when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish
reasons. You’ve “poisoned the well” in that, from now on, people
will tend to doubt his arguments.
"Of course you'd argue that affirmative
action is a bad thing.
You're
white."
Note that if someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will
reduce
their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their
testimony
is false in this case. Liars can tell the truth!
"Don’t listen to her criticisms of
existentialism -- she’s an
experimentalist!"
And every teenager's favorite argument is called tu quoque
(two
wrongs make a right ): Latin for “you, too!” or "look who's
talking!"
"If you think communal living is such a
great idea, why aren't you
living in a commune?"
"If psychology is so great, how come you
have so many problems?"
“If smoking is so bad for you, why do you
smoke?”
But even a smoker can know that it isn't good for you!
Appeal to the masses (argumentum ad populum, appealing to the
people, mob appeal, appealing to the gallery, appeal to popular
pieties).
This involves theatrical appeals to our lowest instincts, such as
selfishness,
greed, jealousy, or vanity rather than using facts and
reasoning...
"Because
you are a college audience, I know I can speak to you about difficult
matters
seriously."
Oh, well, thank you very much; please do go on!
One example of appeal to the masses is the bandwagon fallacy
(consensus gentium, argumentum ad numerum): concluding that an idea has
merit simply because many people believe it or practice it.
“Most people believe in God; therefore,
it must be true.”
Simply
because
many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that
something.
Once upon a time, everyone thought the earth was flat!
"All I'm saying is that millions of
people believe in astrology, so
there must be something to it."
"The enormous popularity of books on
dream analysis alone suggests
its
validity!"
Argument from omniscience: The "everybody" version of
the
preceding.
"Everyone knows that men and women are
psychologically the same!"
“People need to believe in something. Everyone
knows that.”
"Everyone is moving into cognitive
style research -- there must be
something
to it!"
Beware
of words like "all," "everyone," "everything."
Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): This is
where
we bring up famous people, reference groups, science, tradition,
religion,
universality....
“Professor Boeree says behaviorism is
dead.”
Simply because an
authority
says something does not necessarily mean it's correct. Except, of
course, if that authority is me.
The great philosopher Santayana said “Those who remain ignorant of
history
are doomed to repeat it.” But Henry Ford said “History is
bunk!”
So who is right?
"Freud said.... -- and who are we
to argue with a genius of
his
caliber?"
This includes the famous advertising technique called snob
appeal:
"Camel cigarettes. They're not for
everybody!”
"Chez Merde -- the wine for the true
connoisseur!"
"All those who can afford it prefer
Freudian therapy!"
Variations include appeal to tradition (argumentum ad
antiquitatem):
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply
because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."
Just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about whether
it is true (or good). See, for example, astrology, slavery,
superstition,
human
sacrifice....
"Psychologists have always agreed
that...."
The opposite is called appeal to novelty (argumentum ad
novitatem):
The fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct
simply
because it is new, or newer than something else.
“It’s the latest!”
“Windows Vista is much better than older
version of the Windows OS. How could it not
be,
coming after so many years of experience!”
"The most recent studies show that...."
The most recent studies are also the ones that have had the least
chance of being shown to be mistaken!
Appeal to riches (argumentum ad crumenam): The fallacy
of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with
more money are more likely to be right, or that something that costs
more
is intrinsically better.
"Microsoft software is undoubtedly
superior; why else would Bill
Gates
have gotten so rich?"
“It costs twice as much -- it must be
twice as good!”
"You get what you pay for!"
Do you?
"I’ll have to side with the
psychiatrists. After all, they
make
a lot more money than the PhD psychologists!"
The opposite is appeal to poverty (argumentum ad
lazarum):
The fallacy of assuming that someone poor is sounder or more virtuous
than
someone who's wealthier, or that something inexpensive or plain is
somehow
naturally better. For example:
"Monks are more likely to possess insight
into the meaning of life,
as they have given up the distractions of wealth."
“A simple loaf of bread, made lovingly by
hand -- what could be
better?”
"Since John does so much of his work pro bono, he must be a much
more
honest therapist."
Appeal to nature (the natural law fallacy): Arguing
that,
because human beings are products of the natural world, we must mimic
behavior
seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is
'unnatural'.
A common fallacy in political arguments.
"The natural world is characterized by
competition; animals struggle
against each other for ownership of limited natural resources.
Capitalism,
the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an
inevitable
part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."
"Of course homosexuality is unnatural.
When's the last time you saw
two animals of the same sex mating?"
Actually, that’s much more common
than people think - more than 500 species! But that, too, is
irrelevant: What is true for other animals need not be true for us.
"Our attraction to 'beautiful' people
parallels the instincts of
birds
and mammals. Love, therefore, is nothing but an instinct!"
Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam): This is an
appeal
to your tender emotions, your sympathy: Listen, if you can bear
it,
to any telethon. Or listen to advertisements that try to sell
computers
to parents.
"You wouldn't want your kids to be left
behind on the information
super-highway,
would you? What kind of parent are you anyway?"
"I did not murder my mother and father
with an axe! Please don't
find
me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan.”
"Qualitative methods are used by a small
group of dedicated
researchers
working in a hostile environment of experimentalism."
Appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam, argumentum ex
silentio): Arguing that something must be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false. Or arguing that something must be false
because
it hasn't been proved true. That is, my position is right because there
is no evidence against it. Or yours is wrong because there is no
evidence for it.
“We have no evidence that God doesn't
exist. Therefore, he must
exist.”
"There is intelligent life in outer
space, for no one has been able
to prove that there isn't."
Fact of the matter is, you can't
prove
the non-existence of something: No matter how hard you look, I
can
always say you haven't looked hard enough. Go ahead: Prove
to me that unicorns don't exist!
"We don’t know whether holistic medicines
actually help
psychological
disorders, so we might as well use them!"
(Followed by an appeal to pity:
"Would you deny people the chance of getting better, just because
there’s
no evidence?")
A common accompaniment to the appeal to ignorance is shifting
the
burden of proof: The burden of proof is always on the person
asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of
putting
the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the
assertion. So, when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his
claims, he
may
challenge his opponent to prove him wrong.
“Prove God doesn't exist, then!”
“Prove UFO's aren't real, then!”
"I believe that homosexuality is based on
biological differences --
I dare you to prove me wrong!"
Appeal to fear (argumentum ad baculum, appeal to
force):
Don't argue with me, it's dangerous!
"If you do not convict this murderer, one
of you may be his next
victim."
(A similar argument is frequently used in deodorant ads!)
“If you don't believe in God, you'll burn
in hell”
"You better learn your stats:
You’ll never be able to get your
doctorate if you don’t!"
A little more subtle is the argument from adverse consequences:
“The accused must be found guilty,
otherwise others will commit
similar
crimes”
And a common variation is the slippery slope: Arguing that a
change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse
consequences.
“Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a
mile!”
“Pass the equal rights for women
amendment and before you know it,
we’ll
all be using unisex bathrooms!”
"If we legalize marijuana, then more
people would start to take
crack
and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have
a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize
marijuana."
“If we allow physician-assisted suicide,
then eventually the government
will control how we die.”
It does not necessarily follow that just
because
we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.
"If you start people on Prozac, they will
become dependent on it,
then
on drugs in general, and never learn to deal with their problems on
their
own!"
Argumentum ad nauseam: This is the incorrect belief
that
an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be
accepted
as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one
that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the
same
thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it. See
almost
any commercial, or take a look at the practice of having children
memorizing
Bible verses.
"Classical conditioning must be at the
root of all learning -- I had
that drummed into my head at Penn State!"
“All my life, people have told me: a man
doesn’t show weakness!”
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/fallacies.html
