<p>Argumentum advert Baculum ("Argument from the Club." Also, "Argumentum ad Baculam," "Argument from Strength," "Muscular Leadership," "Non-negotiable Demands," "Hard Power," Bullying, The facility-Play, Fascism, Resolution by Force of Arms, Shock and Awe.): The fallacy of "persuasion" or "proving one is true" by force, violence, brutality, terrorism, superior energy, uncooked military would possibly, or threats of violence. E.g., "Gimmee your wallet or I'll knock your head off!" or "We've got the right proper to take your land, since we have now the big guns and you don't." Also applies to oblique types of risk. E.g., "Surrender your foolish pleasure, kneel down and accept our religion today if you don't need to burn in hell without end and ever!" A mainly discursive Argumentum ad Baculum is that of forcibly silencing opponents, ruling them "out of order," blocking, censoring or jamming their message, or just talking over them or/speaking more loudly than they do, this final a tactic significantly attributed to males in blended-gender discussions. Argumentum ad Mysteriam ("Argument from Mystery;" additionally Mystagogy.): A darkened chamber, incense, chanting or drumming, bowing and kneeling, special robes or headgear, holy rituals and massed voices reciting sacred mysteries in an unknown tongue have a quasi-hypnotic impact and may usually persuade extra strongly than any logical argument. The Puritan Reformation was in giant part a rejection of this fallacy. When used knowingly and deliberately this fallacy is particularly vicious and accounts for among the fearsome persuasive power of cults. An example of an Argumentum advert Mysteriam is the "Long ago and far Away" fallacy, the fact that details, proof, practices or arguments from historical times, distant lands and/or "exotic" cultures seem to acquire a particular gravitas or ethos merely because of their antiquity, language or origin, e.g., publicly chanting Holy Scriptures in their authentic (most often incomprehensible) historical languages, preferring the Greek, Latin, Assyrian or Old Slavonic Christian Liturgies over their vernacular versions, or using classic or newly invented Greek and Latin names for fallacies in order to support their validity. See additionally, Esoteric Knowledge. An obverse of the Argumentum advert Mysteriam is the standard Version Fallacy.</p><p>Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from Silence): The fallacy that if available sources stay silent or current data and proof can show nothing about a given subject or query this truth in itself proves the truth of one's claim. E.g., "Science can inform us nothing about God. That proves God does not exist." Or "Science admits it will probably tell us nothing about God, so that you can't deny that God exists!" Often misused in the American justice system, where, contrary to the 5th Amendment and the authorized presumption of innocence until proven responsible, remaining silent or "taking the Fifth" is often falsely portrayed as proof of guilt. E.g., "Mr. Hixon can offer no alibi for his whereabouts the night of January 15th. This proves that he was in reality in room 331 at the Smuggler's Inn, murdering his wife with a hatchet!" In in the present day's America, choosing to stay silent within the face of a police officer's questions could make one guilty sufficient to be arrested or even shot. See additionally, Argument from Ignorance. Availability Bias (also, Attention Bias, Anchoring Bias): A fallacy of logos stemming from the pure tendency to offer undue attention and importance to information that's immediately accessible at hand, significantly the primary or final information received, and to minimize or ignore broader knowledge or wider proof that clearly exists but just isn't as easily remembered or accessed. E.g., "We know from experience that this would not work," when "experience" means the latest native try, ignoring overwhelming expertise from different places and times where it has worked and does work. Also associated is the fallacy of Hyperbole [also, Magnification, or generally Catastrophizing] the place an instantaneous instance is immediately proclaimed "the most vital in all of human historical past," or the "worst in the entire world!" This latter fallacy works extremely effectively with much less-educated audiences and those whose "entire world" may be very small indeed, audiences who "hate history" and whose historic memory spans a number of weeks at best.</p><p>The Bandwagon Fallacy (additionally, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum advert Populum): The fallacy of arguing that as a result of "everybody," "the people," or "the majority" (or somebody in energy who has widespread backing) supposedly thinks or does one thing, it must due to this fact be true and right. E.g., "Whether there actually is giant scale voter fraud in America or not, many individuals now suppose there may be and that makes it so." Sometimes additionally consists of Lying with Statistics, e.g. "Over 75% of Americans consider that crooked Bob Hodiak is a thief, a liar and a pervert. There may not be any evidence, but for anyone with half a brain that conclusively proves that Crooked Bob should go to jail! Lock him up! Lock him up!" This is sometimes mixed with the "Argumentum ad Baculum," e.g., "Like it or not, it is time to choose sides: Are you going to get on board the bandwagon with everyone else, or get crushed underneath the wheels as it goes by?" Or in the 2017 words of former White House spokesperson Sean Spicer, ""They should either get with the program or they will go," A contemporary digital type of the Bandwagon Fallacy is the information Cascade, "in which people echo the opinions of others, often online, even when their own opinions or exposure to info contradicts that opinion. When info cascades type a sample, this sample can begin to overpower later opinions by making it seem as if a consensus already exists." (Due to Teaching Tolerance for this definition!) See also Wisdom of the group, and The massive Lie Technique. For the alternative of this fallacy see the Romantic Rebel fallacy. The big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy (additionally, the Führerprinzip; Mad Leader Disease): A not-unusual however excessive instance of the Blind Loyalty Fallacy below, in which a tyrannical boss, navy commander, or religious or cult-leader tells followers "Don't assume along with your little brains (the brain in your head), however with your Big mind (mine)." This last is generally expressed in constructive phrases, i.e., "You don't have to fret and stress out in regards to the rightness or wrongness of what you might be doing since I, the Leader. am assuming all ethical and legal duty for all your actions. So lengthy as you are faithfully following orders without query I'll defend you and gladly settle for all the consequences up to and including eternal damnation if I'm fallacious." The other of this is the fallacy of "Plausible Deniability." See additionally, "Just Do It!", and "Gaslighting." The large "But" Fallacy (additionally, Special Pleading): The fallacy of enunciating a generally-accepted principle and then immediately negating it with a "however." Often this takes the form of the "Special Case," which is supposedly exempt from the same old rules of law, logic, morality, ethics or even credibility E.g., "As Americans we now have always believed on precept that every human being has God-given, inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, together with in the case of criminal accusations a good and speedy trial before a jury of 1's peers. But, your crime was so unspeakable and a trial would be so problematic for nationwide security that it justifies locking you up for life in Guantanamo without trial, conviction or risk of attraction." Or, "Yes, Honey, I still love you greater than life itself, and I do know that in my marriage ceremony vows I promised earlier than God that I'd forsake all others and be faithful to you 'till loss of life do us half,' but you might have to know, this was a particular case..." See also, "Shopping Hungry," and "We Have to do Something!" The large Lie Technique (additionally the Bold Faced Lie; "Staying on Message."): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, fallacy, slogan, talking-level, nonsense-assertion or misleading half-truth over and over in several kinds (significantly within the media) till it turns into part of every day discourse and folks accept it without additional proof or evidence. Sometimes the bolder and extra outlandish the big Lie becomes the more credible it seems to a willing, most frequently angry audience. E.g., "What in regards to the Jewish Problem?" Note that when this particular phony debate was happening there was no "Jewish Problem," only a Nazi Problem, however hardly anyone in energy recognized or wished to talk about that, while far too many unusual Germans had been only too ready to find a handy scapegoat to blame for his or her suffering throughout the great Depression. Writer Miles J. Brewer expertly demolishes The large Lie Technique in his basic (1930) brief story, "The Gostak and the Doshes." However, extra contemporary examples of the large Lie fallacy may be the fully fictitious August 4, 1964 "Tonkin Gulf Incident" concocted below Lyndon Johnson as a false justification for escalating the Vietnam War, or the non-existent "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq (conveniently abbreviated "WMD's" in an effort to lend this Big Lie a legitimizing, army-sounding "Alphabet Soup" ethos), used in 2003 as a false justification for the Second Gulf War. The November, 2016 U.S. President-elect's assertion that "tens of millions" of ineligible votes were forged in that 12 months's American. presidential election seems to be a basic Big Lie. See also, Alternative Truth; The Bandwagon Fallacy, the Straw Man, Alphabet Soup, and Propaganda. Blind Loyalty (additionally Blind Obedience, Unthinking Obedience, the "Team Player" enchantment, the Nuremberg Defense): The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is correct merely and solely because a respected chief or supply (a President, professional, one’s parents, one's own "aspect," workforce or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) says it is correct. That is over-reliance on authority, a gravely corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above fact, above one's personal motive and above conscience. In this case a person makes an attempt to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal conduct by whining "That's what I used to be told to do," or "I was simply following orders." See additionally, The big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy, and The "Soldiers' Honor" Fallacy. Blood is Thicker than Water (additionally Favoritism; Compadrismo; "For my buddies, anything."): The reverse of the "Ad Hominem" fallacy, a corrupt argument from ethos where a press release, argument or motion is robotically thought to be true, right and above problem as a result of one is said to, knows and likes, or is on the identical staff or side, or belongs to the same religion, occasion, club or fraternity as the person concerned. (E.g., "My brother-in-legislation says he noticed you goofing off on the job. You're a tough worker however who am I going to consider, you or him? You're fired!") See additionally the Identity Fallacy. Brainwashing (also, Propaganda, "Radicalization."): The Cold War-period fantasy that an enemy can instantly win over or "radicalize" an unsuspecting audience with their vile however one way or the other unspeakably persuasive "propaganda," e.g., "Don't take a look at that website! They're attempting to brainwash you with their propaganda!" Historically, "brainwashing" refers more correctly to the inhuman Argumentum ad Baculum of "beating an argument into" a prisoner by way of a mix of ache, worry, sensory or sleep deprivation, extended abuse and refined psychological manipulation (also, the "Stockholm Syndrome."). Such "brainwashing" will also be accomplished by pleasure ("Love Bombing,"); e.g., "Did you want that? I do know you did. Well, there's lots extra the place that got here from once you signal on with us!" (See also, "Bribery.") An unspeakably sinister form of persuasion by brainwashing includes deliberately addicting a person to medication after which offering or withholding the substance depending on the addict's compliance. Note: Only the other facet brainwashes. "We" by no means brainwash. Bribery (additionally, Material Persuasion, Material Incentive, Financial Incentive). The fallacy of "persuasion" by bribery, gifts or favors is the reverse of the Argumentum ad Baculum. As is well known, someone who's persuaded by bribery hardly ever "stays persuaded" in the long term until the bribes keep on coming in and rising with time. See also Appeasement. Calling "Cards": A contemporary fallacy of logos, arbitrarily and falsely dismissing acquainted or simply-anticipated however legitimate, reasoned objections to one's standpoint with a wave of the hand, as mere "playing cards" in some kind of "game" of rhetoric, e.g. "Don't try to play the 'Race Card' towards me," or "She's taking part in the 'Woman Card' again," or "That 'Hitler Card' won't rating with me in this argument." See also, The Taboo, and Political Correctness. Circular Reasoning (additionally, The Vicious Circle; Catch 22, Begging the Question, Circulus in Probando): A fallacy of logos where A is because of B, and B is because of A, e.g., "You cannot get a job without experience, and you cannot get expertise and not using a job." Also refers to falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the identical statement in several phrases. E.g., "The witchcraft downside is essentially the most urgent spiritual crisis on the earth at present. Why? Because witches threaten our very eternal salvation." A corrupt argument from logos. See also the "Big Lie method." The Complex Question: The contemporary fallacy of demanding a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered with out first analyzing or difficult the premise of the query itself. E.g., "Just reply me 'yes' or 'no': Did you assume you could possibly get away with plagiarism and not undergo the results?" Or, "Why did you rob that financial institution?" Also applies to conditions where one is pressured to either settle for or reject advanced standpoints or propositions containing each acceptable and unacceptable elements. A corruption of the argument from logos. A counterpart of Either/Or Reasoning. Confirmation Bias: A fallacy of logos, the widespread tendency to note, search out, select and share evidence that confirms one's personal standpoint and beliefs, as opposed to opposite evidence. This fallacy is how "fortune tellers" work--If I am advised I'll meet a "tall, dark stranger" I will be on the lookout for a tall, dark stranger, and when i meet somebody even marginally meeting that description I'll marvel on the correctness of the "psychic's" prediction. In contemporary times Confirmation Bias is most frequently seen in the tendency of assorted audiences to "curate their political environments, subsisting on one-sided information diets and [even] selecting into politically homogeneous neighborhoods" (Michael A. Neblo et al., 2017, Science magazine). Confirmation Bias (additionally, Homophily) means that people are inclined to search out and comply with solely those media shops that confirm their common ideological and cultural biases, typically to an degree that leads a the false (implicit or even specific) conclusion that "everyone" agrees with that bias and that anybody who doesn't is "loopy," "looney," evil and even "radicalized." See additionally, "Half Truth," and "Defensiveness." Cost Bias: A fallacy of ethos (that of a product), the truth that one thing expensive (either in terms of money, or one thing that is "arduous fought" or "arduous gained" or for which one "paid dearly") is generally valued more highly than something obtained free or cheaply, whatever the item's real quality, utility or true value to the purchaser. E. g., "Hey, I labored arduous to get this car! It could also be nothing but a clunker that cannot make it up a steep hill, but it's mine, and to me it's better than some millionaire's limo." Also applies to judging the standard of a consumer merchandise (or even of its proprietor!) primarily by the merchandise's brand, worth, label or source, e.g., "Hey, you there within the Jay-Mart swimsuit! Har-har!" or, "Ooh, she's driving a Mercedes!" Default Bias: (additionally, Normalization of Evil, "Deal with it;" "If it ain't broke, don't repair it;" Acquiescence; "Making one's peace with the state of affairs;" "Get used to it;" "Whatever is, is true;" "It is what it is;" "Let it's, let or not it's;" "This is the better of all attainable worlds [or, the one possible world];" "Better the satan you realize than the satan you don't."): The logical fallacy of automatically favoring or accepting a situation simply because it exists proper now, and arguing that any other different is mad, unthinkable, unimaginable, or at least would take too much effort, expense, stress or danger to alter. The opposite of this fallacy is that of Nihilism ("Tear it all down!"), blindly rejecting what exists in favor of what might be, the adolescent fantasy of romanticizing anarchy, chaos (an ideology generally referred to as political "Chaos Theory"), disorder, "permanent revolution," or change for change's sake. Defensiveness (additionally, Choice-support Bias: Myside Bias): A fallacy of ethos (one's personal), through which after one has taken a given decision, dedication or course of action, one mechanically tends to defend that decision and to irrationally dismiss opposing choices even when one's decision later on proves to be shaky or flawed. E.g., "Yeah, I voted for Snith. Sure, he turned out to be a crook and a liar and he acquired us into struggle, but I still say that at that time he was better than the out there alternate options!" See also "Argument from Inertia" and "Confirmation Bias." Deliberate Ignorance: (also, Closed-mindedness; "I don't desire to hear it!"; Motivated Ignorance; Tuning Out; Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil [The Three Monkeys' Fallacy]): As described by creator and commentator Brian Resnik on Vox.com (2017), that is the fallacy of merely choosing not to pay attention, "tuning out" or turning off any information, proof or arguments that problem one's beliefs, ideology, standpoint, or peace of mind, following the popular humorous dictum: "Don't attempt to confuse me with the details; my thoughts is made up!" This seemingly innocuous fallacy has enabled essentially the most vicious tyrannies and abuses over history, and continues to do so right now. See also Trust your Gut, Confirmation Bias, The Third Person Effect, "They're All Crooks," the Simpleton's Fallacy, and The Positive Thinking Fallacy. Diminished Responsibility: The common contemporary fallacy of making use of a specialized judicial idea (that criminal punishment should be much less if one's judgment was impaired) to reality on the whole. E.g., "You can't rely me absent on Monday--I was hung over and couldn't come to class so it's not my fault." Or, "Yeah, I was dashing on the freeway and killed a guy, however I used to be buzzed out of my thoughts and did not know what I used to be doing so it did not matter that much." In reality the demise does matter very a lot to the victim, to his household and friends and to society usually. Whether the perpetrator was high or not does not matter in any respect since the material outcomes are the same. This also consists of the fallacy of Panic, a quite common contemporary fallacy that one's phrases or actions, no matter how damaging or evil, by some means do not "rely" as a result of "I panicked!" This fallacy is rooted within the confusion of "penalties" with "punishment." See also "Venting." Disciplinary Blinders: A very common contemporary scholarly or skilled fallacy of ethos (that of one's self-discipline, career or educational discipline), routinely disregarding, discounting or ignoring a priori in any other case-relevant analysis, arguments and evidence that come from exterior one's own professional discipline, discourse neighborhood or educational space of examine. E.g., "That is perhaps relevant or not, but it is so not what we're doing in our area proper now." See additionally, "Star Power" and "Two Truths." An analogous fallacy is that of Denominational Blinders, arbitrarily ignoring or waving aside with out critical consideration any arguments or dialogue about faith, morality, ethics, spirituality, the Divine or the afterlife that come from outdoors one's own particular religious denomination or religion tradition. Dog-Whistle Politics: An extreme version of reductionism and sloganeering in the general public sphere, a contemporary fallacy of logos and pathos wherein a brief phrase or slogan of the hour, e.g., "Abortion," "The 1%," "9/11," "Zionism,""Chain Migration," "Islamic Terrorism," "Fascism," "Communism," "Big government," "Taco trucks!", "Tax and tax and spend and spend," "Gun violence," "Gun control," "Freedom of selection," "Lock 'em up,", "Amnesty," and many others. is flung out as "pink meat" or "chum in the water" that reflexively sends one's viewers right into a snapping, foaming-at-the-mouth feeding-frenzy. Any reasoned try to more clearly determine, deconstruct or problem an opponent's "canine whistle" enchantment leads to puzzled confusion at greatest and wild, irrational fury at worst. "Dog whistles" differ extensively in several locations, moments and cultural milieux, and they alter and lose or acquire energy so rapidly that even latest historic texts typically become extraordinarily troublesome to interpret. A common however unhappy instance of the fallacy of Dog Whistle Politics is that of candidate "debaters" of differing political shades simply blowing a succession of discursive "canine whistles" at their viewers as a substitute of addressing, refuting or even bothering to listen to one another's arguments, a state of affairs resulting in contemporary (2017) allegations that the political Right and Left in America are talking "different languages" when they're simply blowing different "dog whistles." See also, Reductionism.. The "Draw Your own Conclusion" Fallacy (also the Non-argument Argument; Let the Facts Speak for Themselves). In this fallacy of logos an in any other case uninformed viewers is introduced with carefully chosen and groomed, "shocking information" and then prompted to instantly "draw their own conclusions." E.g., "Crime rates are greater than twice as high amongst center-class Patzinaks than amongst any other comparable population group--draw your personal conclusions." It's well-known that these who're allowed to "come to their very own conclusions" are usually much more strongly convinced than these who are given both proof and conclusion up entrance. However, Dr. William Lorimer points out that "The only rational response to the non-argument is 'So what?' i.e. 'What do you assume you have proved, and why/how do you think you've proved it?'" Closely associated (if not similar) to this is the nicely-identified "Leading the Witness" Fallacy, the place a sham, sarcastic or biased question is asked solely in order to evoke a desired answer. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: A cognitive bias that leads folks of restricted abilities or knowledge to mistakenly imagine their abilities are better than they really are. (Because of Teaching Tolerance for this definition!) E.g., "I do know Washington was the Father of His Country and never told a lie, Pocahontas was the primary Native American, Lincoln freed the slaves, Hitler murdered six million Jews, Susan B. Anthony gained equal rights for girls, and Martin Luther King said "I've a dream!" Moses parted the Red Sea, Caesar stated "Et tu, Brute?" and the one cause America didn't win the Vietnam War hands-down like we at all times do was as a result of they tied our generals' fingers and the politicians reduce and run. See? Why do I must take a historical past course? I know every part about historical past!" E" for Effort. (also Noble Effort; I'm Trying My Best; The Lost Cause): The widespread contemporary fallacy of ethos that one thing should be right, true, helpful, or worthy of respect and honor solely as a result of one (or another person) has put so much honest good-religion effort and even sacrifice and bloodshed into it. (See additionally Appeal to Pity; Argument from Inertia; Heroes All; or Sob Story). An excessive example of this fallacy is Waving the Bloody Shirt (also, the "Blood of the Martyrs" Fallacy), the fallacy that a trigger or argument, irrespective of how questionable or reprehensible, cannot be questioned without dishonoring the blood and sacrifice of those that died so nobly for that trigger. E.g., "Defend the patriotic gore / That flecked the streets of Baltimore..." (from the official Maryland State Song). See additionally Cost Bias, The Soldier's Honor Fallacy, and the Argument from Inertia. Either/Or Reasoning: (also False Dilemma, All or Nothing Thinking; False Dichotomy, Black/White Fallacy, False Binary): A fallacy of logos that falsely affords solely two potential options regardless that a broad range of possible alternate options, variations and combinations are all the time readily accessible. E.g., "Either you are 100% Simon Straightarrow or you might be as queer as a 3 dollar invoice--it is as simple as that and there's no middle ground!" Or, "Either you’re in with us all the best way or you’re a hostile and must be destroyed! What's it gonna be?" Or, if your performance is anything wanting excellent, you consider your self an abject failure. Also applies to falsely contrasting one option or case to a different that is not likely opposed, e.g., falsely opposing "Black Lives Matter" to "Blue Lives Matter" when in actual fact not just a few police officers are themselves African American, and African Americans and police should not (or ought to not be!) pure enemies. Or, falsely posing a selection of both helping needy American veterans or helping needy international refugees, when the truth is in as we speak's United States there are ample assets available to easily do each ought to we care to take action. See additionally, Overgeneralization. Equivocation: The fallacy of intentionally failing to outline one's phrases, or knowingly and intentionally using phrases in a unique sense than the one the audience will understand. (E.g., President Bill Clinton stating that he did not have sexual relations with "that lady," meaning no sexual penetration, knowing full nicely that the audience will perceive his assertion as "I had no sexual contact of any form with that girl.") This can be a corruption of the argument from logos, and a tactic usually used in American jurisprudence. Historically, this referred to a tactic used in the course of the Reformation-period religious wars in Europe, when folks had been pressured to swear loyalty to at least one or another aspect and did as demanded via "equivocation," i.e., "After i solemnly swore true religion and allegiance to the King I actually meant to King Jesus, King of Kings, and to not the evil usurper squatting on the throne at the moment." This latter type of fallacy is excessively rare in the present day when the swearing of oaths has turn out to be effectively meaningless besides as obscenity or as speech formally subject to perjury penalties in authorized or judicial settings. The Eschatological Fallacy: The historic fallacy of arguing, "This world is coming to an end, so..." Popularly refuted by the observation that "Since the world is coming to an finish you will not want your life savings anyhow, so why not give it all to me?" Esoteric Knowledge (also Esoteric Wisdom; Gnosticism; Inner Truth; the Inner Sanctum; Have to Know): A fallacy from logos and ethos, that there is some knowledge reserved just for the Wise, the Holy or the Enlightened, (or these with proper Security Clearance), issues that the lots can not understand and do not deserve to know, at the least not till they turn into wiser, more trusted or extra "spiritually superior." The counterpart of this fallacy is that of Obscurantism (additionally Obscurationism, or Willful Ignorance), that (nearly always stated in a basso profundo voice) "There are some things that we mere mortals should by no means search to know!" E.g., "Scientific experiments that violate the privacy of the marital bed and expose the deep and private mysteries of human sexual habits to the tough gentle of science are obscene, sinful and morally evil. There are some things that we as people are merely not meant to know!" For the alternative of this latter, see the "Plain Truth Fallacy." See additionally, Argumentum advert Mysteriam. Essentializing: A fallacy of logos that proposes an individual or thing "is what it's and that’s all that it's," and at its core will always be the way in which it is correct now (E.g., "All terrorists are monsters, and can nonetheless be terrorist monsters even if they stay to be 100," or "'The poor you will always have with you,' so any effort to eliminate poverty is pointless."). Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that one thing is a certain method "by nature," an empty claim that no quantity of proof can refute. (E.g., "Americans are chilly and greedy by nature," or "Women are naturally better cooks than men.") See also "Default Bias." The other of this is Relativizing, the usually postmodern fallacy of blithely dismissing any and all arguments towards one's standpoint by shrugging one's shoulders and responding " Whatever..., I do not really feel like arguing about it;" "All of it relies upon...;" "That's your opinion; all the things's relative;" or falsely invoking Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Weirdness or the speculation of Multiple Universes to be able to confuse, mystify or "refute" an opponent. See additionally, "Red Herring" and "Appeal to Nature." The Etymological Fallacy: (additionally, "The Underlying Meaning"): A fallacy of logos, drawing false conclusions from the (most frequently long-forgotten) linguistic origins of a present phrase, or the alleged meanings or associations of that word in another language. E.g., "As utilized in physics, electronics and electrical engineering the term 'hysteresis' is grossly sexist because it originally got here from the Greek phrase for 'uterus' or 'womb.'" Or, "I refuse to eat fish! Don't you already know that the French word for "fish" is 'poisson,' which looks simply like the English phrase 'poison'? And doesn't that counsel something to you?" Famously, postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida performed on this fallacy at nice size in his (1968) "Plato's Pharmacy." The Excluded Middle: A corrupted argument from logos that proposes that since a little of one thing is sweet, more must be higher (or that if less of one thing is good, none at all is even better). E.g., "If eating an apple a day is nice for you, consuming an all-apple diet is even better!" or "If a low fats food plan prolongs your life, a no-fat diet should make you live without end!" An reverse of this fallacy is that of Excluded Outliers, where one arbitrarily discards proof, examples or results that disprove one's standpoint by simply describing them as "Weird," "Outliers," or "Atypical." See also, "The big 'But' Fallacy." Also opposite is the Middle of the Road Fallacy (additionally, Falacia advert Temperantiam; "The Politics of the center;" Marginalization of the Adversary), where one demonstrates the "reasonableness" of one's personal standpoint (irrespective of how extreme) not by itself merits, but solely or primarily by presenting it as the one "average" path amongst two or more clearly unacceptable extreme alternatives. E.g., anti-Communist scholar Charles Roig (1979) notes that Vladimir Lenin efficiently argued for Bolshevism in Russia as the only available "reasonable" middle path between bomb-throwing Nihilist terrorists on the ultra-left and a corrupt and hated Czarist autocracy on the suitable. As Texas politician and humorist Jim Hightower famously declares in an undated quote, "The middle of the road is for yellow traces and lifeless armadillos." The "F-Bomb" (additionally Cursing; Obscenity; Profanity). An adolescent fallacy of pathos, trying to defend or strengthen one's argument with gratuitous, unrelated sexual, obscene, vulgar, crude or profane language when such language does nothing to make an argument stronger, apart from perhaps to create a way of identification with certain younger male "city" audiences. This fallacy additionally contains adding gratuitous sex scenes or "adult" language to an otherwise unrelated novel or movie, sometimes simply to avoid the dreaded "G" score. Related to this fallacy is the Salacious Fallacy, falsely attracting consideration to and thus potential agreement with one's argument by inappropriately sexualizing it, particularly connecting it to some type of intercourse that's perceived as deviant, perverted or prohibited (E.g., Arguing in opposition to Bill Clinton's presidential legacy by persevering with to wave Monica's Blue Dress, or in opposition to Donald Trump's presidency by obsessively highlighting his past boasting about genital groping). Historically, this dangerous fallacy was deeply implicated with the crime of lynching, through which false, racist accusations towards a Black or minority victim were virtually at all times salacious in nature and the sensation involved was efficiently used to whip up public emotion to a murderous pitch. See also, Red Herring. The False Analogy: The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another so as to attract a false conclusion. E.g., "Similar to an alley cat must prowl, a traditional adult can’t be tied down to 1 single lover." The alternative of this fallacy is the Sui Generis Fallacy (also, Differance), a postmodern stance that rejects the validity of analogy and of inductive reasoning altogether as a result of any given particular person, place, factor or idea underneath consideration is "sui generis" i.e., different and distinctive, in a class unto itself. Finish the Job: The harmful contemporary fallacy, often geared toward a lesser-educated or working class viewers, that an action or standpoint (or the continuation of that action or standpoint) may not be questioned or discussed because there is "a job to be achieved" or finished, falsely assuming "jobs" are meaningless however by no means to be questioned. Sometimes these involved internalize ("buy into") the "job" and make the task a part of their very own ethos. (E.g., "Ours is to not reason why / Ours is but to do or die.") Related to that is the "Just a Job" fallacy. (E.g., "How can torturers stand to take a look at themselves in the mirror? But I suppose it is Ok as a result of for them it is only a job like some other, the job that they get paid to do.") See additionally "Blind Loyalty," "The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy" and the "Argument from Inertia."<br>
The Free Speech Fallacy: The infantile fallacy of responding to challenges to at least one's statements and standpoints by whining, "It is a free nation, isn't it? I can say anything I wish to!" A contemporary case of this fallacy is the "Safe Space," or "Safe Place," where it's not allowed to refute, problem or even talk about another's beliefs because that is likely to be too uncomfortable or "triggery" for emotionally fragile people. E.g., "All I advised him was, 'Jesus loves the little youngsters,' however then he turned around and requested me 'But what about birth defects?' That's mean. I feel I'll cry!" Prof. Bill Hart Davidson (2017) notes that "Ironically, the most strident requires 'security' come from those that want us to problem protections for discredited concepts. Things that science doesn't help AND which have destroyed lives - issues like the inherent superiority of 1 race over another. Those ideas wither below calls for for evidence. They *are* unwelcome. But let's be clear: they're unwelcome because they have not survived the problem of scrutiny." Ironically, in contemporary America "free speech" has usually change into shorthand for freedom of racist, offensive or even neo-Nazi expression, ideological tendencies that when in energy sometimes quash free speech. Additionally, a recent (2017) scientific study has discovered that, in truth, "folks assume harder and produce better political arguments when their views are challenged" and not artificially protected without problem. The elemental Attribution Error (also, Self Justification): A corrupt argument from ethos, this fallacy happens on account of observing and comparing conduct. "You assume that the bad behavior of others is caused by character flaws and foul dispositions whereas your habits is defined by the surroundings. So, for example, I rise up in the morning at 10 a.m. I say it is as a result of my neighbors get together till 2 within the morning (scenario) but I say that the explanation why you do it is that you're lazy. Interestingly, it's extra frequent in individualistic societies the place we value self volition. Collectivist societies are likely to look on the atmosphere extra. (It happens there, too, but it surely is way less widespread.)" [Due to scholar Joel Sax for this!] The obverse of this fallacy is Self Deprecation (additionally Self Debasement), the place, out of both a false humility or a genuine lack of self-esteem, one deliberately places oneself down, most often in hopes of attracting denials, gratifying compliments and reward.</p><p>Gaslighting: A recently-outstanding, vicious fallacy of logic, denying or invalidating a person's personal data and experiences by intentionally twisting or distorting known facts, reminiscences, scenes, events and evidence in an effort to disorient a vulnerable opponent and to make him or her doubt his/her sanity. E.g., "Who're you going to imagine? Me, or your own eyes?" Or, "You declare you discovered me in mattress along with her? Think once more! You're crazy! You critically have to see a shrink." A quite common, though merciless instance of Gaslighting that seems to have been particularly familiar amongst mid-20th century generations is the fallacy of Emotional Invalidation, questioning, after the very fact, the fact or "validity" of affective states, both one other's or one's personal. E.g., "Sure, I made it occur from starting to end, however nevertheless it wasn't me doing it, it was simply my silly hormones betraying me." Or, "You did not really imply it when you said you 'hate' Mommy. Now take a time-out and you'll feel higher." Or, "No, you're not really in love; it's simply infatuation or 'puppy love.'" The fallacy of "Gaslighting" is named after British playwright Patrick Hamilton's 1938 stage play "Gas Light," also called "Angel Street." See also, Blind Loyalty, "The large Brain/Little Brain Fallacy," The Affective Fallacy, and "Alternative Truth." Guilt by Association: The fallacy of attempting to refute or condemn someone's standpoint, arguments or actions by evoking the detrimental ethos of those with whom the speaker is recognized or of a group, party, religion or race to which he or she belongs or was as soon as related to. A type of Ad Hominem Argument, e.g., "Don't hearken to her. She's a Republican so you can't belief something she says," or "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" An extreme instance of that is the Machiavellian "For my enemies, nothing" Fallacy, where actual or perceived "enemies" are by definition always flawed and must be conceded nothing, not even the time of day, e.g., "He's a Republican, so even when he stated the sky is blue I wouldn't believe him." The Half Truth (additionally Card Stacking, Stacking the Deck, Incomplete Information): A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of consciously selecting, collecting and sharing only that proof that supports one's personal standpoint, telling the strict reality however deliberately minimizing or omitting important key details with a view to falsify the bigger image and help a false conclusion.(E.g. "The reality is that Bangladesh is one of the world's quickest-rising international locations and might boast of a younger, ambitious and laborious-working inhabitants, a household-positive tradition, a delightful, warm climate of tropical beaches and swaying palms where it never snows, low price medical and dental care, a vibrant faith tradition and a large number of locations of worship, an exquisite, world-class spicy native curry delicacies and a swinging entertainment scene. Taken together, all these solid details clearly prove that Bangladesh is one of the world’s most fascinating locations for young households to live, work and raise a household.") See additionally, Confirmation Bias. Hero-Busting (also, "The proper is the Enemy of the good"): A postmodern fallacy of ethos underneath which, since nothing and nobody in this world is ideal there are usually not and have by no means been any heroes: Washington and Jefferson held slaves, Lincoln was (by our contemporary standards) a racist, Karl Marx sexually exploited his household's personal young dwell-in home worker and got her pregnant, Martin Luther King Jr. had an eye fixed for women too, Lenin condemned feminism, the Mahatma drank his own urine (ugh!), Pope Francis is improper on abortion, capitalism, same-sex marriage and ladies's ordination, Mother Teresa beloved suffering and was improper on nearly the whole lot else too, and so forth., and many others Also applies to the now close to-universal political tactic of ransacking everything an opponent has said, written or achieved since infancy in order to seek out something to misinterpret or condemn (and we all have something!). An early example of this latter tactic is deftly described in Robert Penn Warren's basic (1946) novel, All of the King's Men. This is the alternative of the "Heroes All" fallacy, beneath. The "Hero Busting" fallacy has also been selectively employed on the service of the Identity Fallacy (see under) to falsely "show" that "you can't trust anybody" but a member of "our" id-group since everybody else, even the so-known as "heroes" or "allies" of other groups, are all racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or hate "us." E.g., In 1862 Abraham Lincoln mentioned he was keen to settle the U.S. Civil War either with or with out freeing the slaves if it would preserve the Union, thus "conclusively proving" that all whites are viciously racist at coronary heart and that African Americans should do for self and never trust any of "them," not even those who declare to be allies. Heroes All (additionally, "Everybody's a Winner"): The contemporary fallacy that everyone seems to be above common or extraordinary. A corrupted argument from pathos (not wanting anyone to lose or to feel unhealthy). Thus, every member of the Armed Services, past or current, who serves honorably is a nationwide hero, each scholar who competes within the Science Fair wins a ribbon or trophy, and every racer is awarded a winner's yellow jersey. This corruption of the argument from pathos, a lot ridiculed by disgraced American humorist Garrison Keeler, ignores the fact that if all people wins nobody wins, and if everyone's a hero nobody's a hero. The logical result of this fallacy is that, as kids's writer Alice Childress writes (1973), "A hero ain't nothing but a sandwich." See additionally the "Soldiers' Honor Fallacy." Hoyle's Fallacy: A fallacy of logos, falsely assuming that a doable occasion of low (even vanishingly low) probability can by no means have occurred and/or would never happen in real life. E.g., "The chance of something as advanced as human DNA emerging by purely random evolution within the time the earth has existed is so negligible that it is for all sensible functions impossible and will need to have required divine intervention." Or, "The chance of a informal, Saturday-night poker player being dealt four aces off an honest, shuffled deck is so infinitesimal that it might never happen even as soon as in a traditional lifetime! That proves you cheated!" See also, Argument from Incredulity. An obverse of Hoyle's Fallacy is "You Can't Win if You do not Play," (additionally, "Someone's gonna win and it'd as nicely be YOU!") a standard and cruel contemporary fallacy used to persuade weak audiences, significantly the poor, the mathematically illiterate and playing addicts to throw their money away on lotteries, horse races, casinos and different long-shot playing schemes. I Wish I Had a Magic Wand: The fallacy of regretfully (and falsely) proclaiming oneself powerless to change a foul or objectionable situation over which one has energy. E.g., "What can we do about gasoline costs? As Secretary of Energy I want I had a magic wand, however I don't" [shrug] . Or, "No, you can't stop piano lessons. I wish I had a magic wand and will teach you piano overnight, however I don't, so prefer it or not, it's important to keep on working towards." The father or mother, after all, ignores the possibility that the youngster could not want or have to study piano. See also, TINA. The Identity Fallacy (additionally Identity Politics; "Die away, ye previous forms and logic!"): A corrupt postmodern argument from ethos, a variant on the Argumentum advert Hominem wherein the validity of one's logic, evidence, experience or arguments relies upon not on their very own energy but fairly on whether the one arguing is a member of a given social class, technology, nationality, religious or ethnic group, color, gender or sexual orientation, profession, occupation or subgroup. On this fallacy, legitimate opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside or "othered" without comment or consideration, as merely not price arguing about solely because of the lack of proper background or ethos of the particular person making the argument, or as a result of the one arguing does not self-establish as a member of the "in-group." E.g., "You'd understand me right away if you had been Burmese but since you are not there isn't any method I can clarify it to you," or "Nobody but one other nurse can know what a nurse has to go through." Identity fallacies are strengthened by common ritual, language, and discourse. However, these fallacies are sometimes self-involved, pushed by the egotistical ambitions of academics, politicians and would-be group leaders anxious to build their own careers by carving out a particular id group constituency to the exclusion of existing broader-based mostly identities and leadership. An Identity Fallacy may result in scorn or rejection of doubtlessly helpful allies, actual or potential, as a result of they don't seem to be of one's own id. The Identity Fallacy promotes an exclusivist, typically cultish "do for self" philosophy which in at present's world just about guarantees self-marginalization and final defeat. A latest application of the Identity Fallacy is the fallacious accusation of "Cultural Appropriation," in which those that are not of the appropriate Identity are condemned for "appropriating" the delicacies, clothes, language or music of a marginalized group, forgetting the previous axiom that "Imitation is the sincerest type of flattery." Accusations of Cultural Appropriation fairly often stem from competing egocentric financial interests (E.g., "What right do these p*nche Gringos need to set up a taco place right here on Guadalupe Drive to remove enterprise from Doña Teresa's Taquería? They even dare to play Mexican music of their dining room! That's cultural appropriation!"). See also, Othering. Infotainment (also Infortainment; Fake News; InfoWars); A very corrupt and dangerous fashionable media-pushed fallacy that intentionally and knowingly stirs in information, news, falsities and outright lies with entertainment, a mixture often concocted for particular, base ideological and revenue-making motives. Origins of this fallacy predate the present era within the type of "Yellow" or "Tabloid" Journalism. This deadly fallacy has brought on countless social unrest, discontent and even capturing wars (e.g., the Spanish American War) over the course of modern historical past. Practitioners of this fallacy sometimes hypocritically justify its use on the basis that their readers/listeners/viewers "know beforehand" (or ought to know) that the content material provided isn't meant as actual news and is offered for entertainment purposes only, but the truth is this caveat isn't noticed by uncritical audiences who eagerly swallow what the purveyors put forth. See additionally Dog-Whistle Politics. The Job's Comforter Fallacy (also, "Karma is a bi**h;" "What goes round comes around."): The fallacy that since there is no such thing as a such factor as random chance and we (I, my group, or my country) are underneath particular protection of heaven, any misfortune or natural catastrophe that we suffer have to be a punishment for our personal or someone else's secret sin or open wickedness. The opposite of the Appeal to Heaven, this is the fallacy employed by the Westboro Baptist Church members who protest fallen service members' funerals all across the United States. See also, Magical Thinking. Just Do it. (additionally, "Find a approach;" "I don't care the way you do it;" "Accomplish the mission;" "By Any Means Necessary." ): A pure, abusive Argumentum ad Baculum (argument from power), through which somebody in energy arbitrarily waves apart or overrules the moral objections of subordinates or followers and orders them to accomplish a goal by any means required, truthful or foul The clear implication is that unethical or immoral strategies must be used. E.g., "You say there is not any approach you may finish the dig on schedule since you discovered an outdated pioneer gravesite with a fancy tombstone on the excavation site? Well, find a means! Make it disappear! Just do it! I do not need to know the way you do it, simply do it! This is one million greenback contract and we'd like it done by Tuesday." See additionally, Plausible Deniability. Just Plain Folks (also, "Values"): This corrupt modern argument from ethos argues to a much less-educated or rural audience that the one arguing is "just plain of us" who is a "plain talker," "says what s/he is considering," "scorns political correctness," somebody who "you do not need a dictionary to grasp" and who thinks just like the audience and is thus worthy of belief, in contrast to some member of the fancy-speaking, latte-sipping Left Coast Political Elite, some "double-domed professor," "inside-the-beltway Washington bureaucrat," "tree-hugger" or other despised outsider who "would not think like we do" or "does not share our values." It is a counterpart to the Ad Hominem Fallacy and most often carries a distinct reek of xenophobia or racism as properly. See additionally the Plain Truth Fallacy and the Simpleton's Fallacy. The Law of Unintended Consequences (also, "Every Revolution Finally ends up Eating its own Young:" Grit; Resilience Doctrine): In this very harmful, archly pessimistic postmodern fallacy the bogus "Law of Unintended Consequences," as soon as a semi-humorous satirical corollary of "Murphy's Law," is elevated to to the standing of an iron legislation of history. This fallacy arbitrarily proclaims a priori that since we are able to never know every little thing or securely foresee anything, sooner or later in as we speak's "complex world" unforeseeable opposed consequences and damaging unintended effects (so-referred to as "unknown unknowns") will at all times find yourself blindsiding and overwhelming, defeating and vitiating any and all naive "do-gooder" efforts to improve our world. Instead, one must always anticipate defeat and be ready to roll with the punches by creating "grit" or "resilience" as a main survival ability. This nihilist fallacy is a sensible negation of the the potential of any legitimate argument from logos. See additionally, TINA. Lying with Statistics: The contemporary fallacy of misusing true figures and numbers to "prove" unrelated claims. (e.g. "In real terms, attending school has never been cheaper than it is now. When expressed as a percentage of the nationwide debt, the cost of getting a faculty schooling is definitely far less at present than it was back in 1965!"). A corrupted argument from logos, often preying on the general public's perceived or precise mathematical ignorance. This includes the Tiny Percentage Fallacy, that an amount or motion that is quite vital in and of itself somehow becomes insignificant just because it is a tiny percentage of something much bigger. E.g., the arbitrary arrest, detention or interception of "solely" a few hundred legally-boarded international travelers as a tiny percentage of the tens of thousands who usually arrive. Under this similar fallacy a shopper who would choke on spending an extra dollar for 2 cans of peas will usually ignore $50 additional on the price of a car or $a thousand further on the value of a house simply because these variations are "only" a tiny share of the a lot larger amount being spent. Historically, sales taxes or worth-added taxes (VAT) have successfully gained public acceptance and remain "below the radar" due to this latter fallacy, despite the fact that amounting to a whole lot or hundreds of dollars a 12 months in additional tax burden. See additionally Half-truth, the Snow Job, and the Red Herring. Magical Thinking (also, the Sin of Presumption; Expect a Miracle!): An ancient however deluded fallacy of logos, arguing that in relation to "crunch time," offered one has sufficient faith, prays exhausting enough, says the best words, does the correct rituals, "names it and claims it," or "claims the Promise," God will at all times suspend the laws of the universe and work a miracle on the request of or for the benefit of the True Believer. In observe this nihilist fallacy denies the existence of a rational or predictable universe and thus the potential for any legitimate argument from logic. See also, Positive Thinking, the Appeal to Heaven, and the Job's Comforter fallacy. Mala Fides (Arguing in Bad Faith; also Sophism): Using an argument that the arguer himself or herself knows shouldn't be valid. E.g., An unbeliever attacking believers by throwing verses from their own Holy Scriptures at them, or a lawyer arguing for the innocence of somebody whom s/he knows full nicely to be responsible. This latter is a standard observe in American jurisprudence, and is typically portrayed as the worst face of "Sophism." [Special because of Bradley Steffens for pointing out this fallacy!] Included underneath this fallacy is the fallacy of Motivational Truth (additionally, Demagogy, or Campaign Promises), intentionally lying to "the people" to gain their support or inspire them toward some action the rhetor perceives to be desirable (utilizing evil discursive means toward a "good" material end). A particularly bizarre and corrupt type of this latter fallacy is Self Deception (also, Whistling by the Graveyard). during which one intentionally and knowingly deludes oneself so as to realize a objective, or maybe merely to suppress anxiety and maintain one's energy level, enthusiasm, morale, peace of mind or sanity in moments of adversity. Measurability: A corrupt argument from logos and ethos (that of science and arithmetic), the fashionable Fallacy of Measurability proposes that if one thing can't be measured, quantified and replicated it does not exist, or is "nothing but anecdotal, touchy-feely stuff" unworthy of critical consideration, i.e., mere gossip or subjective opinion. Often, reaching "Measurability" essentially calls for preselecting, "fiddling" or "massaging" the accessible knowledge merely with the intention to make it statistically tractable, or as a way to help a desired conclusion. Scholar Thomas Persing thus describes "The modernist fallacy of falsely and inappropriately making use of norms, standardizations, and knowledge level requirements to quantify productiveness or success. This is much like advanced question, measurability, and oversimplification fallacies where the person makes an attempt to categorize complicated / numerous subjects into terms that when measured, go well with their position. For instance, the calculation of inflation within the United States would not embrace the modifications in the worth to gasoline, because the worth of gasoline is simply too volatile, despite the actual fact gasoline is important for most people to stay their lives in the United States." See also, "A Priori Argument," "Lying with Statistics," and the "Procrustean Fallacy." Mind-reading (Also, "The Fallacy of Speculation;" "I can read you want a e book"): An historical fallacy, a corruption of stasis idea, speculating about someone else's ideas, emotions, motivations and "body language" and then claiming to grasp these clearly, generally extra accurately than the individual in question is aware of themselves. The rhetor deploys this phony "information" as a fallacious warrant for or against a given standpoint. Scholar Myron Peto gives as an example the baseless declare that "Obama doesn’t a da** [sic] for human rights." Assertions that "name for speculation" are rightly rejected as fallacious in U.S. judicial proceedings but far too typically pass uncontested in public discourse. The opposite of this fallacy is the postmodern fallacy of Mind Blindness (additionally, the Autist's Fallacy), a whole denial of any regular human capacity for "Theory of Mind," postulating the utter incommensurability and privateness of minds and thus the impossibility of ever realizing or actually understanding one other's ideas, emotions, motivations or intents. This fallacy, much promoted by the late postmodernist guru Jacques Derrida, necessarily vitiates any type of Stasis Theory. However, the Fallacy of Mind Blindness has been decisively refuted in several research, together with current (2017) research revealed by the Association for Psychological Science, and a (2017) Derxel University study indicating how "our minds align when we communicate." Moral Licensing: The contemporary moral fallacy that one's constantly moral life, good behavior or latest extreme suffering or sacrifice earns him/her the suitable to commit an immoral act with out repercussions, consequences or punishment. E.g., "I have been good all year, so one unhealthy won't matter," or "After what I've been by way of, God is aware of I need this." The fallacy of Moral Licensing can be typically utilized to nations, e.g., "Those that criticize repression and the Gulag in the former USSR neglect what extraordinary suffering the Russians went by means of in World War II and the thousands and thousands upon millions who died." See additionally Argument from Motives. The opposite of this fallacy is the (excessively rare in our times) moral fallacy of Scruples, during which one obsesses to pathological excess about one's unintentional, forgotten, unconfessed or unforgiven sins and because of them, the seemingly inevitable prospect of eternal damnation. Moral Superiority (additionally, Self Righteousness; the Moral High Ground): An historic, immoral and very dangerous fallacy, enunciated in Thomistic / Scholastic philosophy in the late Middle Ages, arguing that Evil has no rights that the good and the Righteous are bound to respect. That approach lies torture, heretic-burning, and the Spanish Inquisition. Those who observe this vicious fallacy reject any "ethical equivalency" (i.e., even-handed treatment) between themselves (the Righteous) and their enemies (the Wicked), against whom anything is fair, and to whom nothing must be conceded, not even the fitting to life. This fallacy is a selected denial of the historical "Golden Rule," and has been the cause of countless intractable battle, since if one is Righteous no negotiation with Evil and its minions is feasible; The one imaginable road to a "just" peace is through whole victory, i.e., absolutely the defeat and liquidation of one's Wicked enemies. American folks singer and Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan expertly demolishes this fallacy in his 1963 protest song, "With God on Our Side." See additionally the Appeal to Heaven, and Moving the Goalposts. Mortification (also, Live as though You're Dying; Pleasure-hating; No Pain No Gain): An ancient fallacy of logos, trying to "beat the flesh into submission" by excessive exercise or ascetic practices, deliberate starvation or infliction of ache, denying the undeniable proven fact that discomfort and ache exist for the aim of warning of lasting injury to the physique. Extreme examples of this fallacy are varied types of self-flagellation resembling practiced by the brand new Mexico "Penitentes" throughout Holy Week or by Shia devotees during Muharram. More familiar contemporary manifestations of this fallacy are excessive "insanity" exercise regimes not meant for normal well being, health or competitive purposes but just to "toughen" or "punish" the physique. Certain pop-nutritional theories and diets appear based mostly on this fallacy as well. Some contemporary specialists recommend that self-mortification (an English word related to the Latinate French root "mort," or "loss of life.") is in actual fact "suicide on the installment plan." Others suggest that it entails a narcotic-like addiction to the physique's pure endorphins. The other of this fallacy is the ancient fallacy of Hedonism, in search of and valuing bodily pleasure as a good in itself, simply for its personal sake. Moving the Goalposts (additionally, Changing the principles; All's Fair in Love and War; The Nuclear Option; "Winning is not every little thing, it is the only factor"): A fallacy of logos, demanding sure proof or evidence, a certain degree of help or a certain number of votes to resolve an issue, and then when this is obtainable, demanding much more, different or better assist as a way to deny victory to an opponent. For individuals who practice the fallacy of Moral Superiority (above), Moving the Goalposts is commonly perceived as completely good and permissible if mandatory to prevent the victory of Wickedness and ensure the triumph of one's personal side, i.e, the Righteous. MYOB (Mind Your individual Business; also You are not the Boss of Me; "None of yer beeswax," "So What?", The Appeal to Privacy): The contemporary fallacy of arbitrarily prohibiting or terminating any dialogue of 1's own standpoints or behavior, regardless of how absurd, harmful, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privateness round oneself and one's actions. A corrupt argument from ethos (one's own). E.g., "Sure, I used to be doing eighty and weaving between lanes on Mesa Street--what's it to you? You're not a cop, you are not my nanny. It's my business if I need to hurry, and your enterprise to get the hell out of my approach. Mind your personal damn business!" Or, "Yeah, I killed my baby. So what? Butt out! It wasn't your brat, so it's none of your damn enterprise!" Rational dialogue is lower off because "it is none of your corporation!" See additionally, "Taboo." The counterpart of this is "Nobody Will Ever Know," (additionally "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas;" "I think We're Alone Now," or the center of Darkness Syndrome) the fallacy that simply because no person necessary is wanting (or because one is on vacation, or away in school, or overseas) one could freely commit immoral, selfish, unfavourable or evil acts at will without expecting any of the normal consequences or punishment . Author Joseph Conrad graphically describes this kind of ethical degradation in the character of Kurtz in his basic novel, Heart of Darkness. Name-Calling: Quite a lot of the "Ad Hominem" argument. The dangerous fallacy that, merely because of who one is or is alleged to be, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections towards one's standpoint or actions are robotically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. E.g., "My stand on abortion is the one correct one. To disagree with me, argue with me or query my judgment in any approach would only present what a pig you actually are." Also applies to refuting an argument by simply calling it a "fallacy," or declaring it invalid with out proving why it's invalid, or summarily dismissing arguments or opponents by labeling them "racist," "communist," "fascist," "moron," any identify adopted by the suffix "tard" (quick for the highly offensive "retard") or some other unfavourable identify without additional rationalization. E.g., "He's an a**gap, finish of story" or "I'm a loser." A subset of that is the Newspeak fallacy, creating identification with a certain form of audience by inventing or using racist or offensive, typically army-sounding nicknames for opponents or enemies, e.g., "The damned DINO's are even worse than the Repugs and the Neocons." Or, "In the large One it took us solely five years to beat each the J*ps and the Jerries, so more than a decade and a half after niner-eleven why is it so hard for us to beat a raggedy bunch of Hajjis and Towel-heads?" Note that originally the word "Nazi" belonged on this category, but this term has lengthy come into use as a correct English noun. See additionally, "Reductionism," "Ad Hominem Argument," and "Alphabet Soup." The Narrative Fallacy (also, the Fable; the Poster Child) The historic fallacy of persuasion by telling a "heartwarming" or horrifying story or fable, notably to less-educated or uncritical audiences who're less seemingly to grasp purely logical arguments or general rules. E.g., Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol." Narratives and fables, particularly people who identify names and personalize arguments, tend to be much more persuasive at a preferred level than other types of argument and are virtually irrefutable, even when the story in question is well known to be completely fictional. This fallacy is discovered even in the sphere of science, as famous by a current (2017) scientific study. The NIMBY Fallacy (Not in My Back Yard; additionally "Build a Wall!"; "Lock'em up and throw away the key;" The Ostrich Strategy; The Gitmo Solution.). The infantile fallacy that a problem, challenge or menace that is not bodily close by or to which I'm circuitously uncovered has for all practical purposes "gone away" and ceased to exist. Thus, a problem may be completely and definitively solved by "making it go away," preferably to someplace "out of sight," a walled-off ghetto or a distant isle where there is no news coverage, and the place no one essential stays. Lacking that, it can be made to go away by simply eliminating, censoring or ignoring "detrimental" media coverage and public discussion of the issue and focusing on "optimistic, encouraging" things as an alternative. No Discussion (additionally No Negotiation; the Control Voice; Peace by way of Strength; a Muscular Foreign Policy; Fascism): A pure Argumentum advert Baculum that rejects reasoned dialogue, offering both immediate, unconditional compliance/surrender or defeat/loss of life as the one two options for settling even minor variations, e.g., screaming "Get down on the ground, now!" or declaring "We don't talk to terrorists." This deadly fallacy falsely paints real or potential "hostiles" as monsters devoid of all motive, and far too often incorporates a very robust factor of "machismo" as well. I.e. "An actual, muscular chief by no means resorts to pantywaist pleading, apologies, excuses, fancy discuss or argument. That's for legal professionals, liars and pansies and is nothing however a delaying tactic. An actual man stands tall, says what he thinks, draws fast and shoots to kill." The late actor John Wayne frequently portrayed this fallacy in his movie roles. See additionally, The Pout. Non-recognition: A deluded fallacy in which one intentionally chooses to not publicly "acknowledge" floor fact, normally on the theory that this could by some means reward evil-doers if we recognize their deeds as real or consequential. Often the underlying concept is that the state of affairs is "short-term" and can quickly be reversed. E.g., Within the decades from 1949 until Richard Nixon's presidency the United States formally refused to recognize the existence of essentially the most populous nation on earth, the People's Republic of China, because America supported the U.S.-pleasant Republic of China government on Taiwan as an alternative and hoped they may someway return to power on the mainland. Perversely, in 2016 the U.S. President-Elect brought on a significant worldwide flap by chatting with the President of the federal government on Taiwan, a de facto violation of lengthy-standing American non-recognition of that very same regime. More than half a century after the Korean War the U.S. nonetheless refuses to pronounce the name of, or recognize (a lot much less conduct regular, peaceful negotiations with) a nuclear-armed DPRK (North Korea). A person who practices this fallacy risks institutionalization (e.g., "I refuse to acknowledge Mom's murder, 'cuz that'd give the victory to the murderer! I refuse to look at you bury her! Stop! Stop!") but tragically, such behavior is only too common in international relations. See additionally the State Actor Fallacy, Political Correctness, and The Pout. The Non Sequitur: The deluded fallacy of offering evidence, causes or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand (e.g. "The reason I flunked your course is because the U. S. authorities is now putting out purple 5-greenback payments! Purple!"). (See additionally Red Herring.) Nothing New Under the Sun (also, Uniformitarianism, "Seen all of it earlier than;" "Surprise, surprise;" "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même selected."): Fairly rare in contemporary discourse, this deeply cynical fallacy, a corruption of the argument from logos, falsely proposes that there just isn't and will never be any real novelty in this world. Any argument that there are really "new" ideas or phenomena is judged a priori to be unworthy of severe discussion and dismissed with a jaded sigh and a wave of the hand as "the usual same old." E.g., "[Sigh!] Idiots! Don't you see that the current influx of refugees from the Mideast is just the standard Muslim invasion of Christendom that’s been happening for 1,four hundred years?" Or, "Libertarianism is nothing but re-warmed anarchism, which, in flip, is nothing however the historic Antinomian Heresy. Like I informed you earlier than, there's nothing new underneath the sun!"</p><p>Olfactory Rhetoric (additionally, "The Nose Knows"): A vicious, zoological-stage fallacy of pathos through which opponents are marginalized, dehumanized or hated primarily based on their supposed odor, lack of private cleanliness, imagined diseases or filth. E. g., "Those demonstrators are demanding something or another but I'll solely discuss to them if first they go home and take a bath!" Or, "I can odor a Jew a block away!" Also applies to demeaning different cultures or nationalities based mostly on their differing cuisines, e.g., "I don't care what they say or do, their breath always stinks of garlic. And have you ever ever smelled their kitchens?" Olfactory Rhetoric straddles the borderline between a fallacy and a psychopathology. A 2017 study by Ruhr University Bochum suggests that olfactory rhetoric does not arise from a simple, computerized physiological response to an actual odor, but in reality, strongly depends on one's predetermined reaction or prejudices toward another, and one's olfactory center "is activated even before we perceive an odour." See additionally, Othering.</p><p>Oops! (also, "Oh, I forgot...," "The Judicial Surprise," "The October Surprise,"): A corrupt argument from logos by which towards the decisive finish of a dialogue, debate, trial, electoral campaign period, or resolution-making course of an opponent immediately, elaborately and usually sarcastically shams having simply remembered or uncovered some salient truth, argument or evidence. E.g., "Oops, I forgot to ask you: You had been convicted of this similar offense twice earlier than, weren't you?!" Banned in American judicial argument, this fallacy is just too widespread in public discourse. Also applies to supposedly "discovering" and sensationally reporting some doubtlessly damning data or proof after which, after the injury has been accomplished or the decision has been made, quietly declaring, "Oops, I suppose that actually wasn't that significant after all. Ignore what I said. Sorry 'bout that!"</p><p>Othering (also Otherizing, "They're not Like Us," Stereotyping, Xenophobia, Racism, Prejudice): A badly corrupted, discriminatory argument from ethos where facts, arguments, experiences or objections are arbitrarily disregarded, ignored or put down without severe consideration because these concerned "will not be like us," or "don't assume like us." E.g., "It's Ok for Mexicans to earn a buck an hour within the maquiladoras [Mexico-primarily based "Twin Plants" run by American or different overseas companies]. If it occurred here I'd call it brutal exploitation and daylight robbery but south of the border, down Mexico approach the economy is different and they don't seem to be like us." Or, "You declare that life must be actually horrible over there for terrorists to ever consider blowing themselves up with suicide vests just to make a degree, but always remember that they're totally different from us. They do not think about life and dying the identical method we do." A vicious number of the Ad Hominem Fallacy, most often applied to non-white or non-Christian populations. A variation on this fallacy is the "Speakee" Fallacy ("You speakee da English?"; also the Shibboleth), through which an opponent's arguments are mocked, ridiculed and dismissed solely due to the speaker's alleged or real accent, dialect, or lack of fluency in customary English, e.g., "He advised me 'Vee vorkers need to type a younion!' however I told him I'm not a 'vorker,' and to come back back when he learns to talk proper English." A really harmful, excessive instance of Othering is Dehumanization, a fallacy of faulty analogy the place opponents are dismissed as mere cockroaches, lice, apes, monkeys, rats, weasels or bloodsucking parasites who don't have any proper to talk or to stay at all, and doubtless must be "squashed like bugs." This fallacy is in the end the "logic" behind ethnic cleansing, genocide and fuel ovens. See also the Identity Fallacy, "Name Calling" and "Olfactory Rhetoric." The alternative of this fallacy is the "Pollyanna Principle" beneath.</p><p>Overexplanation: A fallacy of logos stemming from the actual paradox that past a sure level, more clarification, instructions, knowledge, dialogue, proof or proof inevitably results in much less, not more, understanding. Contemporary urban mythology holds that this fallacy is usually male ("Mansplaining"), whereas barely half a century ago the prevailing myth was that it was men who have been naturally monosyllabic, grunting or non-verbal whereas ladies would sometimes overexplain (e.g., the 1960 hit song by Joe Jones, "You Talk Too much"). "Mansplaining" is, in accordance with scholar Danelle Pecht, "the infuriating tendency of many males to all the time need to be the smartest person within the room, regardless of the subject of dialogue and the way a lot they actually know!" See additionally The Snow Job, and the "Plain Truth" fallacy.</p><p>Overgeneralization (additionally Hasty Generalization; Totus pro Partes Fallacy; the Merological Fallacy): A fallacy of logos the place a broad generalization that's agreed to be true is offered as overriding all particular circumstances, particularly special instances requiring quick attention. E.g., "Doctor, you say that this time of 12 months a flu vaccination is essential. but I might counter that all vaccinations are important" (implying that I'm not going to present particular consideration to getting the flu shot). Or, trying to refute "Black Lives Matter" by replying, "All Lives Matter," the latter undeniably true but nonetheless a fallacious overgeneralization in that particular and urgent context. " Overgeneralization may also mean one sees a single unfavourable final result as an eternal sample of defeat. Overgeneralization might also embrace the the Pars professional Toto Fallacy, the stupid however frequent fallacy of incorrectly making use of one or two true examples to all cases. E.g., a minority one who commits a very horrifying crime, and whose example is then used to smear the repute of the whole group, or when a authorities publishes particular lists of crimes committed by teams who're imagined to be hated, e.g., Jews, or undocumented immigrants. Famously, the case of 1 Willie Horton was efficiently used on this manner within the 1988 American presidential election to smear African Americans, Liberals, and by extension, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. See additionally the fallacy of "Zero Tolerance" under. The Paralysis of Analysis (additionally, Procrastination; the Nirvana Fallacy): A postmodern fallacy that since all knowledge isn't in, any conclusion is at all times provisional, no reputable decision can ever be made and any action should all the time be delayed until forced by circumstances. A corruption of the argument from logos. (See also the "Law of Unintended Consequences.") The Passive Voice Fallacy (also, the Bureaucratic Passive): A fallacy from ethos, concealing energetic human agency behind the curtain of the grammatical passive voice, e.g., "It has been decided that you are to be let go," arrogating an ethos of cosmic infallibility and inevitability to a really fallible aware resolution made by identifiable, fallible and doubtlessly culpable human beings. Scholar Jackson Katz notes (2017): "We speak about how many ladies have been raped last yr, not about how many males raped girls. We speak about what number of girls in a school district have been harassed last year, not about how many boys harassed women. We discuss how many teenage ladies in the state of Vermont bought pregnant final year, fairly than how many men and boys impregnated teenage women. ... So you'll be able to see how using the passive voice has a political impact. [It] shifts the main target off of males and boys and onto ladies and ladies. Even the time period 'Violence towards girls' is problematic. It is a passive construction; there's no lively agent in the sentence. It's a foul factor that occurs to girls, however if you look on the time period 'violence against girls' nobody is doing it to them, it simply occurs to them... Men aren't even part of it." See additionally, Political Correctness. An obverse of the Passive Voice Fallacy is the Be-verb Fallacy, a cultish linguistic theory and the bane of many a primary-yr composition pupil's life, alleging that an extraordinary degree of "readability," "sanity," or textual "liveliness" could be reached by strictly eliminating all passive verb types and all types of the verb "to be" from English-language writing. This odd but unproven contention, courting back to Alfred Korzybski's "General Semantics" self-enchancment movement of the 1920's and '30's through S. I. Hayakawa, blithely ignores the fact that though quite a few major world languages lack a ubiquitous "be-verb," e.g., Russian, Hindi and Arabic, audio system of those languages, like English-talking General Semantics devotees themselves, have never been confirmed to enjoy any explicit cognitive benefit over abnormal everyday users of the passive voice and the verb "to be." Nor have writers of the curiously stilted English that results from making use of this fallacy achieved any special success in academia, skilled or technical writing, or in the popular domain. Paternalism: A serious fallacy of ethos, arbitrarily tut-tutting, dismissing or ignoring another's arguments or considerations as "childish" or "immature;" taking a condescending attitude of superiority towards opposing standpoints or towards opponents themselves. E.g., "Your argument against the warfare is so infantile. Try approaching the problem like an grownup for a change," "I do not argue with youngsters," or "Somebody has to be the grownup in the room, and it might as effectively be me. Here's why you're wrong..." Also refers back to the sexist fallacy of dismissing a girl's argument because she is a lady, e.g., "Oh, it have to be that point of the month, eh?" See additionally "Ad Hominem Argument" and "Tone Policing." Personalizaion: A deluded fallacy of ethos, seeing yourself or someone else because the essential trigger of some external occasion for which you or the opposite particular person had no responsibility. E.g., "Never fails! It needed to happen! It's my ordinary rotten luck that the biggest blizzard of the 12 months had to happen just on the day of our winter festival. If it wasn't for ME being concerned I'm certain the blizzard wouldn't have happened!" This fallacy will also be taken in a constructive sense, e.g. Hitler evidently believed that just because he was Hitler each bullet would miss him and no explosive might contact him. "Personalization" straddles the borderline between a fallacy and a psychopathology. See additionally, "The Job's Comforter Fallacy," and "Magical Thinking." The Plain Truth Fallacy; (also, the straightforward Truth fallacy, Salience Bias, the KISS Principle [Keep it Short and Simple / Keep it Simple, Stupid], the Monocausal Fallacy; the Executive Summary): A fallacy of logos favoring acquainted, singular, summarized or easily comprehensible data, examples, explanations and evidence over those that are extra complicated and unfamiliar but much closer to the reality. E.g., "Ooooh, look in any respect those equations and formulation! Just boil it all the way down to the easy Truth," or "I don't want your damned philosophy lesson! Just tell me the Plain Truth about why this is occurring." A more sophisticated model of this fallacy arbitrarily proposes, as did 18th century Scottish rhetorician John Campbell, that the truth is at all times simple by nature and solely malicious enemies of Truth would ever seek to make it complicated. (See additionally, The Snow Job, and Overexplanation.) The alternative of this is the postmodern fallacy of Ineffability or Complexity (additionally, Truthiness; Post-Truth),, arbitrarily declaring that right now's world is so advanced that there is no reality, or that Truth (capital-T), if certainly such a thing exists, is unknowable except maybe by God or the Messiah and is thus perpetually inaccessible and irrelevant to us mere mortals, making any cogent argument from logos inconceivable. See also the big Lie, and Paralysis of Analysis. Plausible Deniability: A vicious fallacy of ethos below which somebody in power forces those beneath his or her management to do some questionable or evil act and to then falsely assume or conceal accountability for that act so as to protect the ethos of the one in command. E.g., "Arrange a fatal accident however be certain that I do know nothing about it!" Playing on Emotion (also, the Sob Story; the Pathetic Fallacy; the "Bleeding Heart" fallacy, the Drama Queen / Drama King Fallacy): The traditional fallacy of pure argument from pathos, ignoring details and evoking emotion alone. E.g., "If you don’t agree that witchcraft is a major downside just shut up, shut your eyes for a moment and picture in your mind all these poor mothers crying bitter tears for their innocent tiny children whose cozy little beds and pleased tricycles lie all cold and abandoned, just because of these wicked outdated witches! Let's string’em all up!" The opposite of that is the Apathetic Fallacy (also, Cynicism; Burnout; Compassion Fatigue), where any and all reputable arguments from pathos are brushed apart as a result of, as noted nation music artist Jo Dee Messina sang (2005), "My give-a-damn's busted." Obverse to Playing on Emotion is the historical fallacy of Refinement ("Real Feelings"), the place sure classes of dwelling beings such as plants and non-domesticated animals, infants, babies and minor kids, barbarians, slaves, deep-sea sailors, farmworkers, criminals and convicts, refugees, addicts, terrorists, Catholics, Jews, foreigners, the poor, individuals of color, "Hillbillies," "Hobos," homeless or undocumented people, or "the decrease courses" in general are deemed incapable of experiencing actual ache like we do, or of having any "real emotions" in any respect, only brutish appetites, vile lusts, evil drives, filthy cravings, biological instincts, psychological reflexes and automatic tropisms. Noted rhetorician Kenneth Burke falls into this final, behaviorist fallacy in his in any other case good (1966) Language as Symbolic Action, in his discussion of a bird trapped in a lecture room. See additionally, Othering.</p><p>Political Correctness ("Pc"): A postmodern fallacy, a counterpart of the "Name Calling" fallacy, supposing that the character of a factor or situation might be changed by simply changing its title. E.g., "Today we strike a blow for animal rights and in opposition to cruelty to animals by changing the identify of ‘pets’ to ‘animal companions.’" Or "Never, ever play the 'victim' card, as a result of it's so manipulative and sounds so damaging, helpless and despairing. Instead of being 'victims,' we are proud to be 'survivors.'" (After all, when "victims" disappear then perpetrators conveniently vanish as well!) See additionally, The Passive Voice Fallacy, and The Scripted Message. Also applies to different types of political "Language Control," e.g., being careful by no means to consult with North Korea or ISIS/ISIL by their fairly pompous proper names ("the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and "the Islamic State," respectively) or to the Syrian authorities because the "Syrian government," (It's always the "Regime" or the "Dictatorship."). Occasionally the fallacy of "Political Correctness" is falsely confused with easy courtesy, e.g., "I'm sick and tired of the tyranny of Political Correctness, having to observe my words on a regular basis--I need to be free to talk my mind and to name out a N----- or a Queer in public any time I rattling nicely feel like it!" See also, Non-recognition. An opposite of this fallacy is the fallacy of Venting, beneath. The Pollyanna Principle (also, "The Projection Bias," "They're Just like Us," "Singing 'Kumbaya.'"): A conventional, usually tragic fallacy of ethos, that of routinely (and falsely) assuming that everyone else in any given place, time and circumstance had or has principally the identical (optimistic) wishes, needs, pursuits, concerns, ethics and moral code as "we" do. This fallacy virtually if not theoretically denies each the truth of difference and the human capability to chose radical evil. E.g., arguing that "The only factor most Nazi Storm Troopers needed was the same factor we do, to reside in peace and prosperity and to have a superb family life," when the truth was radically otherwise. Dr. William Lorimer presents this clarification: "The Projection Bias is the flip side of the 'They're not Like Us' [Othering] fallacy. The Projection bias (fallacy) is 'They're simply folks like me, due to this fact they have to be motivated by the identical things that encourage me.' For example: 'I'd never pull a gun and shoot a police officer until I used to be convinced he was making an attempt to homicide me; therefore, when Joe Smith shot a police officer, he should have been in genuine fear for his life.' I see the identical fallacy with regard to Israel: 'The people of Gaza simply need to be left in peace; therefore, if Israel would just carry the blockade and allow Hamas to import something they want, with out restriction, they might stop firing rockets at Israel.' That will or will not be true - I personally don't believe it - but the argument clearly presumes that the folks of Gaza, or at least their leaders, are motivated by a need for peaceful co-existence." The Pollyanna Principle was gently but expertly demolished within the traditional twentieth-century American animated cartoon collection, "The Flintstones," during which the humor lay in the absurdity of picturing "Stone Age" characters having the same issues, values and lifestyles as mid-twentieth century white working class Americans. That is the opposite of the Othering fallacy. (Note: The Pollyanna Principle fallacy should not be confused with a psychological precept of the identical name which observes that positive memories are normally retained extra strongly than detrimental ones. ) The Positive Thinking Fallacy: An immensely standard but deluded trendy fallacy of logos, that because we're "pondering positively" that in itself one way or the other biases exterior, objective reality in our favor even earlier than we lift a finger to act. See also, Magical Thinking. Note that this specific fallacy is commonly a part of a much wider closed-minded, considerably cultish ideology the place the practitioner is warned towards taking note of to and even acknowledging the fact of evil, or of "destructive" evidence or counter-arguments towards his/her standpoints. In the latter case rational discussion, argument or refutation is most frequently futile. See also, Deliberate Ignorance. The Post Hoc Argument: (also, "Post Hoc Propter Hoc;" "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc;" "Too much of a coincidence," the "Clustering Illusion"): The basic paranoiac fallacy of attributing an imaginary causality to random coincidences, concluding that just because one thing occurs near, at the identical time as, or just after one thing else, the very first thing is attributable to the second. E.g., "AIDS first emerged as a epidemic back in the exact same era when Disco music was changing into in style--that's an excessive amount of of a coincidence: It proves that Disco brought about AIDS!" Correlation does not equal causation. The Pout (also The Silent Treatment; Nonviolent Civil Disobedience; Noncooperation): An often-infantile Argumentum ad Baculum that arbitrarily rejects or gives up on dialogue before it's concluded. Probably the most benign nonviolent type of this fallacy is present in passive-aggressive ways similar to slowdowns, boycotts, lockouts, sitdowns and strikes. Under President Barack Obama the United States lastly ended a half-century lengthy political Pout with Cuba. See additionally "No Discussion" and "Nonrecognition." The Procrustean Fallacy (also, "Maintaining Standards," Standardization, Uniformity, Fordism). The modernist fallacy of falsely and inappropriately applying the norms and requirements of standardized manufacturing. quality management and inflexible scheduling, or of navy self-discipline to inherently numerous free human beings, their lives, training, habits, clothing and look. This fallacy typically seems to stem from the pathological need of someone in energy to place in "order" their disturbingly free, messy and disordered universe by proscribing others' freedom and insisting on inflexible standardization, alphabetization, self-discipline, uniformity and "objective" assessment of everybody below their energy. This fallacy partially explains why marching in straight lines, mass calisthenics, goose-stepping, drum-and-bugle or flag corps, standing at consideration, saluting, uniforms, and standardized categorization are so typical of fascism, tyrannical regimes, and of tyrants petty and grand all over the place. Because of creator Eimar O'Duffy for figuring out this fallacy! Prosopology (also, Prosopography, Reciting the Litany; "Tell Me, What Were Their Names?"; Reading the Roll of Martyrs): An historical fallacy of pathos and ethos, publicly studying out loud, singing, or inscribing at length a list of names (most or all of which will likely be unknown to the reader or audience), generally in a unfavourable sense, to underline the gravity of a previous tragedy or mass-casualty event, sometimes in a constructive sense, to emphasize the historical historic continuity of a church, group or trigger. Proper names, especially if they are from the same tradition or language group as the viewers, can have near-mystical persuasive energy. In some circumstances, those who use this fallacy in its contemporary kind will defend it as an try to "personalize" an otherwise anonymous latest mass tragedy. This fallacy was just about unknown in secular American affairs before about 100 years ago, when the customized emerged of listing of the names of local World War I casualties on group monuments across the nation. That that is certainly a fallacy is clear by the fact that the names on these century-old monuments are actually significant solely to genealogists and specialized historians, simply because the names on the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington or the names of those who perished on 9/eleven will surely be in another several generations. The Red Herring (also, Distraction): An irrelevant argument, making an attempt to mislead and distract an audience by bringing up an unrelated but emotionally loaded problem. E.g., "In regard to my a number of bankruptcies and current indictment for corruption let’s be straight up about what’s actually necessary: Terrorism! Just take a look at what happened final week in [title the place]. Vote for me and I'll struggle these terrorists anywhere on the planet!" Also applies to elevating unrelated issues as falsely opposing the issue at hand, e.g., "You say 'Black Lives Matter,' but I'd somewhat say 'Climate Change Matters!'" when the 2 contentions are in no way opposed, only competing for attention. See also Availability Bias, and Dog Whistle Politics. Reductio advert Hitlerum (or, advert Hitleram): A extremely problematic contemporary historical-revisionist contention that the argument "That's just what Hitler mentioned (or would have stated, or would have executed)" is a fallacy, an occasion of the Ad Hominem argument and/or Guilt by Association. Whether the Reductio ad Hitlerum could be thought of an precise fallacy or not appears to fundamentally depend on one's private view of Hitler and the gravity of his crimes.</p><p>Reductionism: (additionally, Oversimplifying, Sloganeering): The fallacy of deceiving an audience by giving easy solutions or bumper-sticker slogans in response to complicated questions, particularly when interesting to much less educated or unsophisticated audiences. E.g., "If the glove doesn’t fit, you need to vote to acquit." Or, "Vote for Snith. He'll carry back jobs!" In science, know-how, engineering and mathematics ("STEM subjects") reductionism is deliberately practiced to make intractable issues computable, e.g., the nicely-recognized humorous suggestion, "First, let's assume the cow is a sphere!". See also, the Plain Truth Fallacy, and Dog-whistle Politics.</p><p>Reifying (also, Mistaking the Map for the Territory): The historical fallacy of treating imaginary mental categories, schemata or names as actual, materials "issues." (E.g., "The War towards Terror is just one other chapter within the eternal struggle to the loss of life between Freedom and Absolute Evil!") Sometimes additionally referred to as "Essentializing" or "Hypostatization." The Romantic Rebel (additionally, the Truthdig / Truthout Fallacy; the Brave Heretic; Conspiracy theories; the Iconoclastic Fallacy): The contemporary fallacy of claiming Truth or validity for one's standpoint solely or primarily as a result of one is supposedly standing up heroically to the dominant "orthodoxy," the current Standard Model, conventional knowledge or Political Correctness, or whatever stands out as the Bandwagon of the moment; a corrupt argument from ethos. E.g., "Back in the day the scientific institution thought that the world was flat, that was until Columbus proved them incorrect! Now they want us to imagine that peculiar water is nothing but H2O. Are you going to consider them? The government is frantically making an attempt to suppress the reality that our public drinking-water supply actually has nitrogen in it and causes congenital vampirism! And what about Area 51? Don't you care? Or are you only a kiss-up for the corrupt scientific institution?" The alternative of the Bandwagon fallacy. The "Save the Children" Fallacy (also, Humanitarian Crisis): A cruel and cynical contemporary media-driven fallacy of pathos, an occasion of the fallacious Appeal to Pity, attracting public assist for intervention in any individual else's crisis in a distant country by repeatedly exhibiting in gross element the extreme (real) suffering of the innocent, defenseless little kids (occasionally extended even to their pets!) on "our" aspect, conveniently ignoring the truth that innocent children on all sides usually suffer the most in any struggle, battle, famine or crisis. Recent (2017) examples embody the so-referred to as "Rohingya" in Myanmar/Burma (ignoring multiple different ethnicities suffering ongoing hunger and conflict in that impoverished country), children in rebel-held areas of Syria (areas held by our rebels, not by the Syrian authorities or by Islamic State rebels), and the children of Mediterranean boat-individuals (mild complected children from the Mideast, Afghanistan and North Africa, however not darker, African-complected youngsters from sub-Saharan international locations, youngsters who are evidently deemed by the media to be far less worthy of pity). Scholar Glen Greenwald points out that a cynical key part of this tactic is hiding the baby and grownup victims of 1's own violence whereas "milking" the tragic, blood-soaked photos of youngsters killed by the "different facet" for each tear they'll generate as a causus belli [a puffed-up excuse for conflict, battle or American/Western intervention]. Scapegoating (additionally, Blamecasting): The historical fallacy that every time something goes fallacious there's always someone aside from oneself to blame. Although sometimes this fallacy is a practical denial of randomness or likelihood itself, at this time it's more usually a mere insurance coverage-pushed business choice ("I don't care if it was an accident! Somebody with deep pockets is gonna pay for this!"), although often scapegoating is no more than a cynical ploy to shield those actually responsible from blame. The term "Scapegoating" is also used to consult with the tactic of casting collective blame on marginalized or scorned "Others," e.g., "The Jews are to blame!" A very corrupt and cynical example of scapegoating is the fallacy of Blaming the Victim, during which one falsely casts the blame for one's personal evil or questionable actions on these affected, e.g., "If you progress an eyelash I'll have to kill you and you will be to blame!" "If you do not bow to our calls for we'll shut down the government and it will be completely YOUR fault!" or "You bi**h, you acted flirty and made me rape you! Then you definitely snitched on me to the cops and allow them to acquire a rape kit on you, and now I'll prison and every little bit of it is your fault!" See additionally, the Affective Fallacy. Scare Tactics (also Appeal to Fear; Paranoia; the Bogeyman Fallacy; Shock Doctrine [ShockDoc]; Rally 'Round the Flag; Rally 'Round the President): Quite a lot of Playing on Emotions, a corrupted argument from pathos, taking advantage of a emergent or intentionally-created disaster and its related public shock, panic and chaos to be able to impose an argument, motion or resolution that would be clearly unacceptable if rigorously considered. E.g., "If you do not shut up and do what I say we're all gonna die! In this moment of disaster we can't afford the luxury of criticizing or making an attempt to second-guess my decisions when our very lives and freedom are in peril! Instead, we must be united as one!" Or, in the (2017) words of former White House Spokesperson Sean Spicer, "That is concerning the security of America!" This fallacy is mentioned at size in Naomi Klein's (2010) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and her (2017) No just isn't Enough: Resisting Trump's Shock Politics and Winning the World We need. See additionally, The Shopping Hungry Fallacy, Dog-Whistle Politics, "We Have to do Something!", and The Worst Case Fallacy. "Scoring" (additionally, Moving the Ball Down the sphere, the Sports World Fallacy; "Hey, Sports Fans!"): An instance of defective analogy, the widespread contemporary fallacy of inappropriately and most frequently offensively applying sports activities, gaming, looking or other recreational imagery to unrelated areas of life, equivalent to warfare or intimacy. E.g., "Nope, I haven't scored with Francis but, however last night time I managed to get to third base!" or "We actually must take our ground sport into Kim's half of the field if we ever count on to attain against North Korea." This fallacy is almost all the time soaked in testosterone and machismo. An associated fallacy is that of Evening up the Score (additionally, Getting Even), exacting tit-for-tat vengeance as though life had been some sort of "point-rating" sports activities contest. Counter-arguments to the "Scoring" fallacy normally fall on deaf ears, since the one and solely purpose for playing a game is to "rating," is not it? The Scripted Message (also, Talking Points): A contemporary fallacy related to Big Lie Technique, where a politician or public figure strictly limits her/his statements on a given challenge to repeating carefully scripted, usually exaggerated or empty phrases developed to achieve most acceptance or maximum desired reaction from a target audience. See also, Dog Whistle Politics, and Political Correctness, above. The opposite of this fallacy is that of "Venting." Sending the Wrong Message: A harmful fallacy of logos that assaults a given assertion, argument or motion, no matter how good, true or crucial, because it is going to "ship the unsuitable message." In effect, those who use this fallacy are brazenly confessing to fraud and admitting that the truth will destroy the fragile internet of illusion they've deliberately created by their lies. E.g., "Actually, we have not a clue about how to deal with this crisis, but when we publicly admit it we'll be sending the mistaken message." See also, "Mala Fides."</p><p>Shifting the Burden of Proof: A classic fallacy of logos that challenges an opponent to disprove a declare somewhat than asking the individual making the declare to defend his/her personal argument. E.g., "Lately space-aliens are in every single place among us, masquerading as true humans, even right here on campus! I dare you to prove it is not so! See? You can't! You admit it! That means what I say needs to be true. Likely, you are one of them, since you appear to be so comfortable on area-aliens!" A typical tactic in utilizing this fallacy is first to get an opponent to admit that a far-fetched declare, or some reality associated to it, is certainly no less than theoretically "attainable," after which declare the declare "proven" absent proof to the opposite. E.g., "So you admit that large undetected voter fraud is certainly attainable underneath our current system, and could have happened on this country at least in principle, and you can't produce even the tiniest scintilla of evidence that it didn't truly occur! Ha-ha! I relaxation my case." See additionally, Argument from Ignorance. The Shopping Hungry Fallacy: A fallacy of pathos, a wide range of Playing on Emotions and generally Scare Tactics, making silly but important selections (or being prompted, manipulated or forced to "freely" take public or private choices that may be later regretted but are troublesome to reverse) "in the heat of the second" when beneath the affect of robust emotion (starvation, concern, lust, anger, sadness, regret, fatigue, even joy, love or happiness). E.g., Trevor Noah, (2016) host of the Daily Show on American television attributes public approval of draconian measures within the Patriot Act and the creation of the U. S. Department of Homeland Security to America's "purchasing hungry" instantly after 9/11. See also, Scare Tactics; "We Must Do Something;" and The large "But" Fallacy. The Silent Majority Fallacy: Quite a lot of the argument from ignorance, this fallacy, famously enunciated by disgraced American President Richard Nixon, alleges particular information of a hidden "silent majority" of voters (or of the population on the whole) that stands in support of an in any other case unpopular leader and his/her insurance policies, opposite to the repeated findings of polls, surveys and widespread vote totals. In an excessive case the chief arrogates to him/herself the title of the "Voice of the Voiceless." The Simpleton's Fallacy: (Or, The "Good Simpleton" Fallacy): A corrupt fallacy of logos, described in an undated quote from science writer Isaac Asimov as "The false notion that democracy implies that 'my ignorance is simply as good as your information.'" The title of this fallacy is borrowed from Walter M. Miller Jr.'s basic (1960) put up-apocalyptic novel, A Canticle for Leibowitz, wherein within the centuries after a nuclear holocaust information and learning develop into so despised that "Good Simpleton" becomes the usual type of interpersonal salutation. This fallacy is masterfully portrayed within the particular person of the title character in the 1994 Hollywood movie, "Forrest Gump." The fallacy is extensively alleged to have had an amazing deal to do with the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election, See additionally "Just Plain Folks," and the "Plain Truth Fallacy." U.S. President Barrack Obama famous to the contrary (2016), "In politics and in life, ignorance isn't a advantage. It's not cool to not know what you are speaking about. That's not real or telling it like it is. That's not challenging political correctness. That's simply not knowing what you are speaking about." The time period "Simpleton's Fallacy" has also been used to confer with a misleading strategy of argumentation, feigning ignorance with a purpose to get one's opponent to admit to, explain or overexplain something s/he would somewhat not talk about. E.g., "I see here that you have a associated prior conviction for something referred to as 'Criminal Sodomy.' I could also be a poor, naive simpleton however I'm not quite sure what that fine and fancy lawyer-talk means in plain English. Please explain to the jury in simple terms what exactly you probably did to get convicted of that crime." See also, Argument from Ignorance, and The Third Person Effect. The Slippery Slope (additionally, the Domino Theory): The common fallacy that "one thing inevitably leads to a different." E.g., "When you two go and drink coffee collectively one thing will lead to a different and next factor you already know you'll be pregnant and find yourself spending your life on welfare dwelling in the Projects," or "If we shut Gitmo one thing will lead to a different and earlier than you understand it armed terrorists can be strolling by our church doorways with suicide belts, proud as you please, smack in the middle of the 10:30 a.m. Sunday worship service right right here in Garfield, Kansas!"</p><p>The Snow Job (also Falacia ad Verbosium; Information Bias): A fallacy of logos, "proving" a declare by overwhelming an viewers ("snowing them underneath") with mountains of true but marginally-related paperwork, graphs, words, info, numbers, information and statistics that look extremely spectacular but which the supposed audience can't be anticipated to know or properly consider. This can be a corrupted argument from logos. See also, "Lying with Statistics." The other of this fallacy is the Plain Truth Fallacy. The Soldiers' Honor Fallacy: The historic fallacy that every one who wore a uniform, fought exhausting and followed orders are worthy of some particular honor or glory or are even "heroes," whether or not they fought for freedom or fought to defend slavery, marched below Grant or Lee, Hitler, Stalin, Eisenhower or McArthur, fought to defend their homes, fought for oil or to spread empire, and even fought against and killed U.S. soldiers! A corrupt argument from ethos (that of a soldier), intently related to the "Finish the Job" fallacy ("Sure, he died for a lie, however he deserves honor because he followed orders and did his job faithfully to the tip!"). See additionally "Heroes All." This fallacy was recognized and decisively refuted at the Nuremburg Trials after World War II but remains highly effective to today nonetheless. See also "Blind Loyalty." Related is the State Actor Fallacy, that those that battle and die for his or her country (America, Russia, Iran, the Third Reich, etc.) are worthy of honor or at least pardonable whereas those who struggle for a non-state actor (armed abolitionists, guerrillas, freedom-fighters, jihadis, mujahideen) are not and remain "terrorists" regardless of how noble or vile their cause, till or unless they win and grow to be the recognized state, or are adopted by a state after the actual fact. The usual Version Fallacy: The historic fallacy, a discursive Argumentum advert Baculum, of choosing a "Standard Translation" or "Authorized Version" of an historic or sacred textual content and arbitrarily declaring it "right" and "authoritative," necessarily eliminating much of the poetry and underlying which means of the unique but conveniently quashing any further discussion in regards to the that means of the original textual content, e.g., the Vulgate or The King James Version. The easily demonstrable indisputable fact that translation (beyond three or four words) is neither uniform nor reversible (i.e., by no means comes back exactly the same when retranslated from another language) provides the lie to any efforts to make translation of human languages into an exact science. Islam clearly recognizes this fallacy when characterizing any attempt to translate the sacred textual content of the Holy Qur'an out of the unique Arabic as a "paraphrase" at absolute best. An obverse of this fallacy is the Argumentum advert Mysteriam, above. An extension of the usual Version Fallacy is the Monolingual Fallacy, at an instructional stage the fallacy of ignorantly assuming (as a monolingual individual) that transparent, in-depth translation between languages is the norm, and even doable in any respect, permitting one to conveniently and falsely ignore on a regular basis problems with translation when shut-studying translated literature or academic textual content and idea. At the popular degree the Monolingual Fallacy allows monolinguals to blithely demand that guests, migrants, refugees and newcomers be taught English, both earlier than arriving or else in a single day after arrival in the United States, while applying no such demand to themselves once they go to Asia, Europe, Latin America, and even French-speaking areas of Canada. Not not often, this fallacy descends into gross racism or ethnic discrimination, e.g., the demagogy of warning of "Spanish being spoken right right here on Main Street and taco trucks on every corner!" See also, Othering, and Dog-Whistle Politics. Star Power (also Testimonial, Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of Authority, Falacia ad Vericundiam; Eminence-based Practice): In academia and drugs, a corrupt argument from ethos in which arguments, standpoints and themes of professional discourse are granted fame and validity or condemned to obscurity solely by whoever may be the reigning "stars" or "premier journals" of the profession or discipline for the time being. E.g., "Foster's take on Network Theory has been completely criticized and is so final-week!.This week everybody's into Safe Spaces and Pierce's Theory of Microaggressions. Get with this system." (See additionally, the Bandwagon.) Also applies to an obsession with journal Impact Factors. At the favored stage this fallacy also refers to a corrupt argument from ethos through which public help for a standpoint or product is established by a well known or revered determine (i.e.,. a star athlete or entertainer) who isn't an knowledgeable and who may have been well paid to make the endorsement (e.g., "Olympic gold-medal pole-vaulter Fulano de Tal makes use of Quick Flush Internet--Shouldn’t you?" Or, "My favourite rock star warns that vaccinations unfold cooties, so I'm not vaccinating my kids!" ). Includes different false, meaningless or paid technique of associating oneself or one’s product or standpoint with the ethos of a famous particular person or occasion (e.g., "Try Salsa Cabria, the official taco sauce of the Winter Olympics!"). This fallacy additionally covers Faulty use of Quotes (also, The Devil Quotes Scripture), together with quoting out of context or against the clear intent of the original speaker or author. E.g., racists quoting and twisting the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s statements in favor of racial equality against contemporary activists and movements for racial equality. The Straw Man (also "The Straw Person" ""The Straw Figure"): The fallacy of organising a phony, weak, excessive or ridiculous parody of an opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down or scale back it to absurdity with a rhetorical wave of the hand. E.g., "Vegetarians say animals have emotions like you and me. Ever seen a cow snort at a Shakespeare comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!" Or, "Pro-choicers hate infants and need to kill them!" Or, "Pro-lifers hate women and need them to spend their lives barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove!" A too-frequent instance of this fallacy is that of highlighting probably the most absurd, offensive, foolish or violent examples in a mass movement or demonstration, e.g. "Tree huggers" for environmentalists, "bra burners" for feminists, or "rioters" when there are a dozen violent crazies in a peaceful, disciplined demonstration of 1000's or tens of 1000's, and then falsely portraying these excessive examples as typical of the whole movement with the intention to condemn it with a wave of the hand. See additionally Olfactory Rhetoric. The Taboo (also, Dogmatism):: The ancient fallacy of unilaterally declaring certain "bedrock" arguments, assumptions, dogmas, standpoints or actions "sacrosanct" and not open to discussion, or arbitrarily taking some emotional tones, logical standpoints, doctrines or options "off the table" beforehand. (E.g., " "No, let's not discuss my sexuality," "Don't carry my drinking into this," or "Before we start, it is advisable to know I will not let you play the race card or permit you to attack my arguments by claiming 'That's just what Hitler would say!'") Also applies to discounting or rejecting sure arguments, facts and proof (and even experiences!) out of hand as a result of they're supposedly "against the Bible" or different sacred dogma (See additionally the A Priori Argument). This fallacy sometimes degenerates into a separate, distracting argument over who will get to outline the parameters, tones, dogmas and taboos of the main argument, though at this point reasoned discourse most frequently breaks down and your complete affair turns into a bare Argumentum ad Baculum. See additionally, MYOB, Tone Policing, and Calling "Cards." They're All Crooks: The frequent contemporary fallacy of refusing to get involved in public politics as a result of "all" politicians and politics are allegedly corrupt, ignoring the truth that if that is so in a democratic nation it is exactly because first rate individuals like you and that i refuse to get entangled, leaving the sector open to the "crooks" by default. An example of Circular Reasoning. Related to this fallacy is "They're All Biased," the extremely common contemporary cynical fallacy of ignoring news and news media because none tells the "goal truth" and all push some "agenda." This principally true statement logically requiring audiences to frequently view or learn a wide range of media sources in order to get any approximation of reality, but for many younger individuals in the present day (2017) it means in practice, "Ignore information, information media and public affairs altogether and as a substitute listen to something that is enjoyable, exciting or personally fascinating to you." The sinister implication for democracy is, "Mind your own business and leave all of the 'large' inquiries to your betters, those whose job is to deal with these questions and who're effectively paid to take action." See additionally the Third Person Effect, and Deliberate Ignorance. The "Third Person Effect" (also, "Wise up!" and "They're All Liars"): An instance of the fallacy of Deliberate Ignorance, the arch-cynical postmodern fallacy of intentionally discounting or ignoring media data a priori, opting to remain in ignorance reasonably than "listening to the lies" of the mainstream media, the President, the "medical establishment," professionals, professors, doctors and the "educational elite" or other authorities or data sources, even about pressing subjects (e.g., the necessity for vaccinations) on which these sources are in any other case publicly considered to be usually dependable or relatively trustworthy. In line with Drexel University researchers (2017), the "Third Person Effect ... suggests that individuals will perceive a mass media message to have more affect on others, than themselves. This notion tends to counteract the message's meant 'name-to-motion.' Basically, this suggests that over time people wised up to the truth that some mass media messages were meant to manipulate them -- so the messages grew to become much less and fewer effective." This fallacy appears to be opposite to and an overreaction to the large Lie Technique. See also, Deliberate Ignorance, the Simpleton's Fallacy, and Trust your Gut.</p><p>The "Thousand Flowers" Fallacy (also, "Take names and kick butt."): A complicated, trendy "Argumentum ad Baculum" in which free and open discussion and "brainstorming" are temporarily allowed and inspired (even demanded) within a corporation or nation not primarily so as to listen to and consider opposing views, however somewhat to "smoke out," identify and later punish, fireplace or liquidate dissenters or these not following the Party Line. The name comes from the Thousand Flowers Period in Chinese history when Communist leader Chairman Mao Tse Tung applied this coverage with deadly impact. Throwing Good Money After Bad (additionally, "Sunk Cost Fallacy"): In his glorious guide, Logically Fallacious (2015), Author Bo Bennett describes this fallacy as follows: "Reasoning that additional investment is warranted on the fact that the assets already invested shall be lost otherwise, not bearing in mind the overall losses involved in the further investment." In different words, risking further cash to "save" an earlier, losing funding, ignoring the previous axiom that "Doing the identical thing and anticipating totally different outcomes is the definition of insanity." E.g., "I can't stop betting now, as a result of I already bet the rent and lost, and that i need to win it again or my wife will kill me once i get home!" See also Argument from Inertia.</p><p>TINA (There is no such thing as a Alternative. Also the "Like it or Leave It" Fallacy; "Get over it," "Suck it up," "It's what it's," "Actions/Elections have consequences," or the "Fait Accompli"): A quite common contemporary extension of the both/or fallacy wherein somebody in power quashes vital thought by saying that there isn't any lifelike different to a given standpoint, status or motion, arbitrarily ruling any and all other choices out of bounds, or announcing that a choice has been made and any additional discussion is insubordination, disloyalty, treason, disobedience or simply a waste of valuable time when there's a job to be done. (See also, "Taboo;" "Finish the Job.") TINA is most frequently a bare power-play, a barely extra refined variety of the Argumentum advert Baculum. See additionally Appeal to Closure. Tone Policing. A corrupt argument from pathos and delivery, the fallacy of judging the validity of an argument primarily by its emotional tone of delivery, ignoring the truth that a legitimate fact or argument stays valid whether it is offered calmly and deliberatively or is shouted in a "shrill" or even "hysterical" tone, whether or not carefully written and published in skilled, tutorial language in a respected, peer-reviewed journal or screamed via a bull-horn and peppered with vulgarity. Conversely, a extremely pressing emotional matter is still urgent even if argued coldly and rationally. This fallacy creates a false dichotomy between motive and emotion and thus implicitly favors those who are usually not personally concerned or emotionally invested in an argument, e.g., "I know you are upset, but I will not discuss it with you till you calm down," or "I'd consider what you wrote had been it not for your adolescent overuse of exclamation points throughout the textual content." Or alternately, "You seem to be taking the death of your spouse way too calmly. You're below arrest for homicide. You've got the fitting to stay silent..." Tone Policing is frequent in contemporary discourse of power, significantly in response to discourse of protest, and is occasionally utilized in sexist methods, e.g. the accusation of being "shrill" is sort of at all times used against women, never against males. See also, The F-Bomb.</p><p>Transfer: (additionally, Name Dropping) A corrupt argument from ethos, falsely associating a famous or respected individual, place or thing with an unrelated thesis or standpoint (e.g. putting an image of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on an advertisement for mattresses, using Genghis Khan, a Mongol who hated Chinese, as the name of a Chinese restaurant, or using the Texas flag to promote more vehicles or pickups in Texas that were made in Detroit, Kansas City or Korea). This fallacy is widespread in contemporary academia within the form of utilizing a profusion of scholarly-wanting citations from respected authorities to lend a false gravitas to in any other case specious ideas or textual content. See also "Star Power." Trust your Gut (additionally, Trust your Heart; Trust Your Feelings; Trust your Intuition; Trust your Instincts; Emotional Reasoning): A corrupt argument from pathos, the historic fallacy of relying primarily on "gut feelings" slightly than purpose or evidence to make choices. A current (2017) Ohio State University examine finds, unsurprisingly, that individuals who "belief their gut" are considerably extra vulnerable to falling for "fake news," phony conspiracy theories, frauds and scams than those who insist on hard evidence or logic. See also Deliberate Ignorance, the Affective Fallacy, and The "Third Person Effect."</p><p>Tu Quoque ("You Do it Too!"; also, Two Wrongs Make a Right): A corrupt argument from ethos, the fallacy of defending a shaky or false standpoint or excusing one's personal dangerous motion by declaring that one's opponent's acts, ideology or personal character are additionally open to query, or are even perhaps worse than one's own. E.g., "Sure, we may have tortured prisoners and killed youngsters with drones, however we don't minimize off heads like they do!" Or, "You can't stand there and accuse me of corruption! You guys are all into politics and you already know what we should do to get reelected!" Unusual, self-deprecating variants on this fallacy are the Ego / Nos Quoque Fallacies ("I / we do it too!"), minimizing or defending one other's evil actions because I'm / we are responsible of the identical thing or of even worse. E.g., In response to allegations that Russian Premier Vladimir Putin is a "killer," American President Donald Trump (2/2017) advised an interviewer, "There are a lot of killers. We've obtained a number of killers. What, do you think our nation's so innocent?" This fallacy is said to the Red Herring and to the Ad Hominem Argument.</p><p>Two-sides Fallacy (additionally, Teach the Controversy): The presentation of an issue that makes it seem to have two sides of equal weight or significance, when in truth a consensus or a lot stronger argument helps only one facet. Also known as "false balance" or "false equivalence." (Due to Teaching Tolerance for this definition!) E.g,. "Scientists theorize that the Earth is a sphere, however there are all the time two sides to any argument: Others consider that the Earth is flat and is perched on the again of a large turtle, and a truly balanced presentation of the problem requires teaching each explanations with out bias or unduly favoring both side over the other." Two Truths (also, Compartmentalization; Epistemically Closed Systems; Alternative Truth): A very corrupt and harmful fallacy of logos and ethos, first formally described in medieval times however nonetheless widespread in the present day, holding that there exists one "truth" in one given environment (e.g., in science, work or faculty) and concurrently a distinct, formally contradictory however equally true "fact" in a distinct epistemic system, context, atmosphere, intended viewers or discourse neighborhood (e.g., in a single's religion or at residence). This may result in a state of affairs of stable cognitive dissonance the place, as UC Irvine scholar Dr. Carter T. Butts describes it (2016), "I know but do not believe," making rational discussion tough, painful or unattainable. This fallacy additionally describes the discourse of politicians who cynically proclaim one "reality" as mere "campaign rhetoric" used "to mobilize the bottom," or "for domestic consumption only," and a quite different and contradictory "truth" for extra common or practical functions once in office. See also Disciplinary Blinders; Alternative Truth. Venting (additionally, Letting off Steam; Loose Lips): In the Venting fallacy an individual argues that her/his phrases are or should be exempt from criticism or consequence as a result of s/he was "solely venting," although this very admission implies that the one "venting" was, at lengthy final, freely expressing his/her true, heartfelt and uncensored opinion about the matter in query. This same fallacy applies to minimizing, denying the importance of or excusing different forms of frank, unguarded or uninhibited offensive expression as mere "Locker-room Talk," "Alpha-male Speech" or nothing but cute, adorable, perhaps even sexy "Bad-boy Talk." See additionally, the Affective Fallacy. Opposite to this fallacy are the fallacies of Political Correctness and the Scripted Message, above.</p><p>Venue: The ancient fallacy of Venue, a corrupt argument from kairos, falsely and arbitrarily invalidates an in any other case-valid argument or piece of evidence because it is supposedly supplied within the wrong place, on the incorrect moment or in an inappropriate courtroom, medium or discussion board. Based on PhD scholar Amanda Thran, "Quite often, people will say to me in person that Facebook, Twitter, etc. are 'not the proper forums' for discussing politically and socially sensitive points. ... In this similar vein, I’ve additionally encountered the following argument: 'Facebook, which is used for sharing wedding ceremony, child, and pet photographs, is an inappropriate place for political discourse; people don’t wished to be burdened with that after they log in.' In my experience, this line of reasoning is most often employed (and abused) to shut down a dialog when one feels they are dropping it. Ironically, I have seen it used when the argument has already been transpiring on the platform [in] an already lengthy dialogue." See additionally Disciplinary Blinders. We Have to Do Something: (also, the Placebo Effect; Political Theater; Security Theater; We should send a message): The harmful contemporary fallacy that when "People are scared / Persons are offended / Persons are fed up / Individuals are hurting / People need change" it becomes necessary to do one thing, something, without delay without stopping to ask "What?" or "Why?", even if what is completed is an overreaction, is a completely ineffective sham, an inert placebo, or truly makes the situation worse, somewhat than "just sitting there doing nothing." (E.g., "Banning air passengers from carrying ham sandwiches onto the airplane and making parents take off their newborn infants' tiny pink child-shoes most likely does nothing to deter potential terrorists, but persons are scared and we need to do something to answer this crisis!") This is a badly corrupted argument from pathos. (See also "Scare Tactic" and "The large 'But' Fallacy.")</p><p>Where there’s Smoke, there’s Fire (additionally Hasty Conclusion; Jumping to a Conclusion): The harmful fallacy of ignorantly drawing a snap conclusion and/or taking motion with out sufficient evidence. E.g., "Captain! The man sitting subsequent to me in coach has dark pores and skin and is studying a ebook in some kind of funny language all filled with accent marks, bizarre squiggles above the "N's" and upside-down question marks. It have to be Arabic! Get him off the plane earlier than he blows us all to kingdom come!" A wide range of the "Just in Case" fallacy. The alternative of this fallacy is the "Paralysis of Analysis."</p><p>The Wisdom of the crowd (also, The Magic of the Market; the Wikipedia Fallacy; Crowdsourcing): A quite common contemporary fallacy that people could also be improper but "the group" or "the market" is infallible, ignoring historic examples like witch-burning, lynching, and the market crash of 2008. This fallacy is why most American schools and universities at the moment (2017) ban college students from using Wikipedia as a critical reference supply.</p><p>The Worst-Case Fallacy (additionally, "Just in case;" "We can't afford to take possibilities;" "An abundance of warning;" "Better Safe than Sorry;" "Better to prevent than to lament."): A pessimistic fallacy by which one’s reasoning is based on an improbable, far-fetched and even completely imaginary worst-case scenario quite than on actuality. This plays on pathos (concern) rather than motive, and is usually politically motivated. E.g., "What if armed terrorists had been to assault your county grain elevator tomorrow morning at daybreak? Are you able to struggle again? Better stock up on assault rifles and ammunition right this moment, simply in case!" See also Scare Tactics. The other of this is the Positive Thinking Fallacy. The Worst Negates the Bad (also, Be Grateful for What You've Got): The extraordinarily frequent modern logical fallacy that an objectively bad situation someway is not so bad just because it may have been far worse, or because somebody, someplace has it even worse. E.g., "I cried as a result of I had no footwear, till I saw somebody who had no feet." Or, "You're protesting since you earn only $7.25 an hour? You can simply as easily be out on the road! I occur to know there are folks in Uttar Pradesh who're doing the very same work you are doing for one tenth of what you're making, they usually're pathetically glad just to have work in any respect. You'll want to shut up, put down that picket signal, get back to work for what I care to pay you, and thank me each and every single day for providing you with a job!" Zero Tolerance (additionally, Zero Risk Bias, Broken Windows Policing, Disproportionate Response; Even One is simply too Many; Exemplary Punishment; Judenrein): The contemporary fallacy of declaring an "emergency" and promising to disregard justice and due course of and commit limitless assets (and sometimes, limitless cruelty) to stamp out a restricted, insignificant or even nonexistent drawback. E.g., "I just read about an actual case of cannibalism somewhere in this country. That's disgusting, and even one case is means, manner too many! We want a Federal Taskforce in opposition to Cannibalism with one million-greenback finances and offices in every state, a nationwide SCAN program in all of the grade faculties (Stop Cannibalism in America Now!), and an automated double demise penalty for cannibals; in different phrases, zero tolerance for cannibalism on this nation!" This can be a corrupt and cynical argument from pathos, virtually at all times politically pushed, a very sinister variety of Dog Whistle Politics and the "We Should do Something" fallacy. See additionally, "Playing on Emotions," "Red Herring," and also the "Big Lie Technique." OW 7/06 with thanks to the late Susan Spence. Final revision 1/18, with particular due to Business Insider, Teaching Tolerance, and Vox.com, to Bradley Steffens, to Jackson Katz, Brian Resnick, Glen Greenwald, Lara Bhasin, Danelle M. Pecht, Marc Lawson, Eimar O'Duffy, and Mike Caetano, to Dr. William Lorimer, Dr. Carter T. Butts, Dr. Bo Bennett, Myron Peto, Joel Sax, Thomas Persing, Amanda Thran, and to all the others who advised corrections, additions and clarifications. Links to Amazon.com on this page are for reader convenience only, and no endorsement is obtainable or implied. This list is now not being maintained, but please proceed to copy, mirror, update and share it freely.</p><p>In case you loved this information and you wish to receive details concerning <a href="https://yorikoh2.com/">yorikoh2.com</a> i implore you to visit our webpage.</p>