From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Additions to Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)???
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<77qnq2m@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 06:12:19 GMT

In article <77qnq2m@lynx.unm.edu> jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes:

   Can we come up with other examples of flawed logic and identify the names
   of the above?

   It was done last year:

From: ajr@sparc58.hri.com (MFHorn)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: List of logical fallacies
Date: 22 Oct 91 19:34:04 GMT
Reply-To: ajr@hri.com
Organization: Horizon Research, Inc.

I happened to see this in an archive on CompuServe.  It was
originally(?) posted in the Animal Rights section of the Pet Forum
and someone reposted it in HSX 200 where I found it.  I thought the
people here would be interested..

This is reprinted without permission, but since CompuServe is public,
I'm assuming none is necessary.  The author's name and address have
been removed to protect the guilty.

It was fun seeing how many arguments I've seen and heard used by
christians (including my favorite author Josh McDowell) are actually
known, named logical fallacies.

--
Andy Rosen              |  ajr@hri.com        | "Do you have faith in God above
Horizon Research, Inc.  |     or              |  if The Bible tells you so?"
1432 Main St.           |  ajr@consultix.com  |    - Don McLean, American Pie
Waltham, MA 02154       |                     |

----------CUT HERE----------CUT HERE----------CUT HERE----------CUT HERE-----
These are the basic logical fallacies, informal and formal.  They are
drawn from several sources.  The informal fallacies are more likely
to be useful, especially when you are debating with someone else.
If you learn the fallacies and become fluent in them you will be
able to quickly spot the use of logical fallacies in someone else's
reasoning, or even your own!  Note:  A fallacy is a deceptive, false,
or misleading argument, notion, belief, etc.

The fallacies listed here are from a hypercard shareware stack that
I have put together.

The basic format of this list (and of the stack), is (1) the formal name
of the fallacy (usually its Latin name), followed by (2) a description of
the fallacy.

________________________________________________

LIST OF LOGICAL FALLACIES:

ACCENTUS

Description: A Fallacy of Ambiguity, where the ambiguity arises from
the emphasis (accent) placed on a word or phrase.


AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT

Description: An argument from the truth of a hypothetical statement,
and the truth of the consequent to the truth of the antecedent. In
the syllogism below, P is the antecedent and Q is the consequent:

P  implies Q
Q is true                  <-- Affirming the consequent
______________
Therefore:  P is true


AMBIGUITY

Description: An argument in the course of which at least one term is
used in different senses.  Also known as equivocation. There are
several types of "fallacies of ambiguity," including REIFICATION,
EQUIVOCATION, AMPHIBOLY, COMPOSITION,  DIVISION, and
ACCENTUS.


AMPHIBOLY

Description: A type of Fallacy of Ambiguity where the ambiguity
involved is of an "amphibolous"  (equivocal, uncertain) nature.
Amphiboly is a syntactic error.  The fallacy is caused by faulty
sentence structure, and can result in a meaning not intended by
the author. "The department store now has pants for men with
32 waists." (How many waists do you have?  I have only one!)


ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM

Description: A fallacy of asserting that something is right or good
simply because it is old; that is, because "that's the way it's always
been."


ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM

Description: An argument that resorts to the threat of force to cause
the acceptance of the conclusion. Ad baculum arguments also
include threats of fear to cause acceptance (e.g., "Do this or you'll
go to Hades when you die!" or "Might makes right.").


ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM

Description: Fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of
correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be
right.


ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what
is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's
argument.  Another way of putting it:  Fallacy where you attack
someone's character instead of dealing with salient issues. There
are two basic types of ad hominem arguments:  (1) abusive, and
(2) circumstantial.


ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM

Description: An argument that a proposition is true because it has
not been shown to be false, or vice versa.  Ad ignorantium arguments
are also known as "appeals to ignorance."  This fallacy has two forms:

1.  P is true, because it has not been proven false.
2.  P is false, because it has not been proven true.


ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM

Description: A fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he
or she is sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier.  This
fallacy is the opposite of the informal fallacy "argumentum ad
crumenam."


ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM

Description: An argument that appeals to pity for the sake of getting
a conclusion accepted.


ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM

Description: The incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to
be true the more often it is heard.  An "argumentum ad nauseum"
is one that employs constant repitition in asserting a truth.


ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM

Description: A fallacy of asserting that something is more correct
simply because it is new or newer than something else.  Or that
something is better because it is newer.  This type of fallacy is the
opposite of the "argumentum ad antiquitam" fallacy.


ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM

Description: A fallacy that asserts that the more people who support
or believe a proposition then the more likely that that proposition is correct;
it equates mass support with correctness.


ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM

Description: An argument that appeals to the beliefs of the multitude
(i.e., the "populace").  Another way of putting it:  Speaker deals
with passions of audience rather than with salient issues. This
fallacy is also known as "Appeal to Tradition" Ad populum arguments
often occur in (1) propaganda, (2) demagoguery, and (3) advertising.


ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM

Description: An argument in which an authority is appealed to on
matters outside his/her field of authority.  "Ad verecundiam"  also
refers to a fallacy of simply resorting to appeals to authority.


BEGGING THE QUESTION (CIRCULAR REASONING)

Description: An argument that assumes as part of its premises the
very conclusion that is supposed to be true.  Another way of saying
this is:  Fallacy of assuming at the onset of an argument the very point
you are trying to prove.  The fallacy is also sometimes referred to
as "Circulus in Probando." This Fallacy is also known by the Latin
"PETITIO PRINCIPII".


BIFURCATION

Description: Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy,
bifurcation is the presentation of a situation or condition with
only two alternatives, whereas in fact other alternatives exist or
can exist.


COMPOSITION

Description: An argument in which one assumes that a whole has
a property solely because its various parts have that property.
Composition is a type of Fallacy of Ambiguity.


CONVERTING A CONDITIONAL

Description: If P then Q, therefore, if Q then P.


CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

Description: A fallacy of correlation that links events because they
occur simultaneously; one asserts that because two events occur
together they are causally related, and leaves no room for other
factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.  This fallacy is similar
to the "post hoc" fallacy.


DENIAL OF THE ANTECEDENT

Description: An argument in which one infers the falsity of the
consequent from the truth of a hypothetical proposition, and the
falsity of its antecedent.

P implies Q
Not-P
____________
Therefore:  Not-Q


DIVISION

Description: An argument in which one assumes that various parts
have a property solely because the whole has that same property.
Division is a type of Fallacy of Ambiguity.


EQUIVOCATION

Description: An argument in which an equivocal expression is used in
one sense in one premise and in a different sense in another premise,
or in the conclusion.  Equivocal means (1) of uncertain significance;
not determined, and (2) having different meanings equally possible.
Equivocation is a type of Fallacy of Ambiguity. The opposite of
equivocation is "unovocation," in which a word always carries the
same meaning through a given context.


FALLACY OF INTERROGATION

Description: The question asked has a presuppostion which the
answerer may wish to deny,  but which he/she would be accepting
if he/she gave anything that would count as an answer.  Any answer
to the question "Why does such-and-such happen?" presupposes that
such-and-such does indeed happen.


FALSE ANALOGY

Description: An analogy is a partial similarity between the like features
of two things or events on which a comparison can be made.  A
false analogy involves comparing two things that are NOT similar.
Note that the two things may be similar in superficial ways, but
not with respect to what is being argued.


HASTY GENERALIZATION (SECUNDUM QUID)

Description: An argument in which a proposition is used as a
premise without attention given to some obvious condition that
would affect the proposition's application.  This fallacy is also known
as the "hasty generalization."  It is a fallacy that takes evidence
from several, possibly unrepresentative, cases to a general rule;
generalizing from few to many.  Note the relation to statistics:   Much
of statistics  concerns whether or not a sample is representative of a
larger population. The larger the sample size, the better the
representativeness.  Note also that the opposite of a hasty generalization
is a sweeping generalization.


IGNORATIO ELENCHI

Description: An argument that is supposed to prove one proposition
but succeeds only in proving a different one.  Ignoratio elenchi stands
for "pure and simple irrelevance."


ILLICIT PROCESS

Description: A syllogistic argument in which a term is distributed in
the conclusion, but not in the premises.  One of the rules for a valid
categorical syllogism is that if either term is distributed in the
conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.  There are
two types of Illicit Process:  Illicit Process of the Major Term and
Illicit Process of the Minor Term.


PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM-MANY QUESTIONS

Description: A demand for a simple answer to a complex question.


NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA

Description: An argument to reject a proposition because of the falsity
of some other proposition that seems to be a consequence of the first,
but really is not.


NON-SEQUITUR

Description: An argument in which the conclusion is not a necessary
consequence of the premises.  Another way of putting this is:  A
conclusion drawn from premises that provide no logical connection
to it.


PETITIO PRINCIPII

Description: Same as "Begging the Question"   The argument assumes
its conclusion is true but DOES NOT SHOW it to be true.  Petitio principii
has two forms:

1.  P is true, because P is true.
2.  P is true, because A is true.   And A is true because B is true.
    And B is true because P is true.


POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC

Description: An argument from a premise of the form "A preceded B" to
a conclusion of the form "A caused B."  Simply because one event
precedes another event in time does not mean that the first event is
the cause of the second event. This argument resembles a fallacy known
as a Hasty Generalization.


QUATERNIO TERMINORUM

Description: An argument of the syllogistic form in which there occur
four or more terms.  In a standard categorical syllogism there are
only three terms: a subject, a predicate, and a middle term.


RED HERRING

Description: A fallacy when irrelevant material is introduced to the
issue being discussed, such that everyone's attention is diverted
away from the points being made, and toward a different conclusion.
It is not logically valid to divert a chain of reasoning with
extraneous points.


REIFICATION

Description: To reify something is to convert an abstract concept into
a concrete thing. Reification is a Fallacy of Ambiguity.  Reification is
also sometimes known as a fallacy of  "hypostatization".


SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making
the assertion or proposition.  Shifting the burden of proof, a special
case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the
burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion
being made.  The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something
is true unless proven otherwise.


SPECIAL PLEADING

Description: Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double
standard is employed by the person making the assertion.
Special pleading typically happens when one insists upon less
strict treatment for the argument he/she is making than he or
she would make when evaluating someone else's arguments.


STRAW MAN

Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position
for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down
that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the
original position has been demolished.  It is a fallacy because it
fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.


SWEEPING GENERALIZATION

Description: Also known by the Latin term "DICTO SIMPLICITER",
a Sweeping Generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to
a particular situation in which the features of that particular
situation render the rule inapplicable.  A sweeping generalization
is the opposite of a hasty generalization.


TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT (TU QUOQUE)

Description: Two wrongs never add up to a right; you cannot right
a wrong by applying yet another wrong.  Such a fallacy is a
misplaced appeal to consistency.  It is a fallacy because it makes
no attempt to deal with the subject under discussion.


UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE

Description: A syllogistic argument in which the middle term of
a categorical syllogism is not distributed in at least one of the
premises.

____________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.atheism