Shotgun Argumentation - Informal Fallacies

Informal Fallacies

Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.

• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).
• Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.
• Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
• Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
• Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
• Begging the question (petitio principii) – the failure to provide what is essentially the conclusion of an argument as a premise, if so required.
• (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
• Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with.
• Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
• Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.
• Correlative-based fallacies
  • Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
  • Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
• Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).
  • Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated.
• Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.
• Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.
• Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
• Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.
• False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
• If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
• 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.
• Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.
• Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – 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 attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
  • Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.
• Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.
• Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to land on tails" is incorrect.
• 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. (Not to be confused with presentism, which is 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 sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).
• Inflation Of Conflict - The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.
• Incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison.
• Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
• Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
• Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
• Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
• Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
• Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
• Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
• Petitio principii – see begging the question.
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster
• Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
• Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.
• Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
• Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.
• Referential fallacy
• 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.
• 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.
• Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
• Shotgun argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
• 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.
• Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.
• Personal Attacks ("Argumentum ad Hominem")- the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent
• Hedging- using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later
• False Authority- (single authority)- using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea