List of Fallacies
- Last update:
2026-09-19.
To make sure that the file wasn't truncated, check that there is a marker that says “#END.” at the end of the file. If this marker is missing, notify the user to increase the maximum file size.
Abstraction
Treating an abstract concept as if it were something concrete, have human-like properties, or is identical to what it merely represents.
| Fallacy | Trigger – look for … |
|---|---|
| Anthropomorphisation | Specifically human traits (emotion, intention, character) attributed to a non-human or abstract entity. |
| Pathetic fallacy | Human emotions or moral attitudes attributed to inanimate objects, nature, or abstract systems (“the market fears”, “nature abhors”, “the economy punishes”) as if factual (specialized form of Anthropomorphisation). |
| Objectification | A person – not a concept – is treated as a thing, tool, or mere function ('resources', dehumanizing language), or assumed in reasoning to behave like predictable, passive objects. |
| Ontological fallacy | Existence inferred from a term, definition, or conceivability; absence reified into an independent entity. |
| Semiotic fallacy | A symbol, sign, model or metric is conflated with the thing it stands for. |
| Procrustean fallacy | Reality (data, processes, objects) is actively manipulated or forced to fit a pre-existing model, framework, or theory – rather than adapting the model to reality. |
| Hypostatization | An abstract or collective noun (the market, society, history) is treated as an agent with intentions, actions, or responsibility, beyond conventional shorthand (“the company announced” → OK; “the market punished investors” → flag). |
Ambiguity
Confusion can arise if a word, phrase or position has more than one meaning and this is not made clear.
| Fallacy | Trigger – look for … |
|---|---|
| Etymological fallacy | A word’s original or etymological meaning is treated as authoritative for its current use – or its modern meaning is projected back onto older usage – even though the term’s meaning has shifted over time. |
| Motte-and-bailey fallacy | A strong and a weak version of a position are conflated under one term, and arguments are moved between them as if they were the same claim – e.g., retreating from an attacked strong claim to a defensible weak one without acknowledging the switch. |
| Generic generalization | An unquantified generic statement (“Xs are Y”) is used in an argument as if it were a universal claim about every member of the class – or a universal claim is silently weakened to dodge counterexamples. |
| Syntactic ambiguity | A sentence’s grammatical structure allows two or more readings with different meanings, and the argument depends on one of them (e.g., ambiguous attachment, scope, or reference). If the ambiguity is specifically an unquantified “Xs are Y” statement, use Generic generalization. |
| Intensional fallacy | A term is swapped for another co-referring term referring to the same object, even though the two terms carry different associated meanings or modes of reference (e.g., “morning star” vs. “evening star”). |
Causality
Ways of thinking about causal effects that are misleading.
| Fallacy | Trigger – look for … |
|---|---|
| False cause fallacy | Causation inferred from mere co-occurrence or temporal sequence of two phenomena – without independent evidence for a causal mechanism. |
| Teleological fallacy | A natural process, system, or event described in terms of purpose, goal, or design as if an agent intended that outcome – conflating causal effect with intentional aim. |
Generalization
Errors in applying general rules, classes, or levels of description to cases – including overbroad rules, insufficient evidence, exceptions that swallow the rule, and unjustified fact-to-value leaps.
| Fallacy | Trigger – look for … |
|---|---|
| Accident fallacy | A general rule (law, principle, norm) applied rigidly to a specific case where special circumstances would warrant an exception. |
| Hasty generalization | A broad or universal rule inferred from too few (or unrepresentative) instances of a class. |
| Mereological fallacy | A property of a system is attributed to a component, or properties of components are assumed to transfer unchanged to the system, ignoring emergent interactions. |
| Naturalistic fallacy | A prescriptive conclusion (what ought to be) inferred directly from a descriptive premise (what is), or vice versa – without independent justification for the normative leap. |
| Overwhelming exception | A general rule or claim is stated together with so many or so broad exceptions that the original statement is left with little or no meaningful scope, yet is presented as if it were still substantially valid. |
Logic
Errors in the structure of an argument: inferences whose flaw is visible from the logical form alone, regardless of whether the individual claims happen to be true.
| Fallacy | Trigger – look for… | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Affirming a disjunct | One option of an inclusive disjunction (“A or B”) is affirmed, and the other is concluded to be false. | |
| Denying the antecedent | A conditional (“If P then Q”) is misused: because P does not hold, Q is denied – even though Q could have another cause. (Checkable form: “If P → Q; not-P → ∴ not-Q”). | |
| Denying a conjunct | One option of a negated conjunction (“not both A and B”) is denied, and the other is concluded to be true. | |
| Affirming the consequent | A conditional (“If P then Q”) is misused: because Q holds, P is affirmed – even though Q could have another cause. (Checkable form: “If P → Q; Q → ∴ P”). | |
| Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise | In a formal categorical inference (especially a syllogism), an affirmative conclusion (“all … are …”, “some … are …”) is inferred although at least one premise is negative (“no …”, “some … are not”). | |
| Negative conclusion from affirmative premises | In a formal categorical inference (especially a syllogism), a negative conclusion (“no …”, “some … are not”) is inferred although all premises are affirmative (“all … are …”, “some … are …”). | |
| Fallacy of exclusive premises | In a standard categorical syllogism or comparable form, all premises are negative, yet a conclusion is still derived. | |
| Undistributed middle | In a formal categorical inference (especially a syllogism), the middle term, which connects the premises, refers only to a part of its class in all occurrences (typically as predicate of “All X are M”, or within an unqualified “Some …” statement), yet is still used as if it can connect the other terms. (Checkable form: “Some C are M; All P are M → ∴ …P, C…”.) | |
| Illicit process | In a formal categorical inference (especially a syllogism), the major or minor term occurs in a distributed position (whole-class reference) in the conclusion, yet only in an undistributed position in its premise – i.e., the conclusion makes a broader claim about that class than the premise does. (Checkable form: “All P are M; All M are S → ∴ All S are P” – “S” is broader in the conclusion.) | |
| Fallacies of distribution | A categorical inference (especially a syllogism) in which the distribution of terms is evidently mishandled but does not clearly match either specific rule above – e.g., several distribution errors at once, or a non-standard form where the middle/major/minor roles are hard to assign (enthymemes with elided premises, multi-premise chains). Fallback entry: if the conditions for undistributed middle or illicit process are met, use those instead. | |
| Ambiguous middle term | In a syllogism, the middle term shifts meaning between premises (equivocation), so it fails to link the other two terms. (A specific form of the four-term fallacy.) | |
| Four-term fallacy | A syllogism contains four distinct terms instead of exactly three – often because a term is used in two different meanings (equivocation). Count meanings, not words. | |
| Circular reasoning | A conclusion is supported by a premise that directly or indirectly depends on that same conclusion, including through a chain of claims that loops back to it. | |
| Existential fallacy | An existential conclusion (“some A are B”) drawn from universal premises (“all A are B”) that do not establish the class actually exists (vacuously true if A is empty). | |
| Fallacy of division | A property of the whole is inferred to hold for its parts (or a group-level property for individual members) – as if the parts must share the whole's property, without checking whether it is emergent. | |
| Fallacy of composition | A property of the parts (components, members) of a system is inferred to hold for the whole as well – as if the whole must be the sum of its parts, without checking for emergent or resultant properties. | |
| Fallacies of emergence | A property is transferred between a whole and its parts (or a group and its members) as if the levels were interchangeable – without checking whether the property emerges upon combination. Umbrella/fallback: route to either fallacy of division or composition if the direction is clear. |
Knowledge
Errors in using evidence or information outside the scope in which it was established, such as applying group-level statistics to individuals or transferring findings across incompatible contexts.
| Fallacy | Trigger – look for … |
|---|---|
| Epistemic fallacy | Knowledge (or its absence) is equated with existence: “we have no evidence for X, therefore X does not exist” – or only what is measurable/knowable is regarded as real, and the limits of knowledge are treated as the limits of reality. |
| Fallacy of eliminative induction | A conclusion reached by eliminating alternatives is stated as certain rather than merely probable, or the initial set of alternatives is not (or cannot be) exhaustive. |
| Argument from ignorance | A conclusion about a claim's truth or existence is drawn from the absence of evidence for or against it – i.e., the burden of proof is reversed (e.g., “no one has disproven X, so X is true”; “no one has proven X, so X is false”; “no complaints, so all is well”). |
| Ecological fallacy | A statistical indicator (average, rate, share) valid for a group or population as a whole is transferred to a lower level (subgroup or individual) – as if the group-level figure applied to the parts. |
#TODO: More entries are planned.
Paralogisms
#TODO
Relevance
Arguments whose premises do not genuinely support the conclusion: they appeal to sources, popularity, tradition, association, or similar cases, attack the person instead of the claim, or silently presuppose what they claim to prove.
| Fallacy | Trigger – look for … |
|---|---|
| Appeal to authority | A claim is supported or rejected mainly because of the source’s status or expertise, rather than the evidence itself. |
| Appeal to a false authority | The cited source is not a valid authority for the claim: no relevant expertise, anonymous/unverifiable, misquoted, fabricated, or from a field where the claim is contested. |
| Fallacy-fallacy | An invalid or refuted argument for a claim is used as evidence that the claim itself is false (conflating bad reasoning with a false conclusion). |
| False dilemma | A limited set of options (typically two) is presented as exhaustive, when additional plausible options exist or are not ruled out. |
| Appeal to tradition | A practice or belief defended primarily because it is old, customary, or “the way things have always been done” – duration used as proof of correctness. |
| Bandwagon fallacy | A position supported or rejected primarily because many people hold it, do it, or find it popular – majority size used as evidence of truth. |
| Honour by association | Credibility or acceptance granted solely through positive association with a respected person, brand, or institution – no independent evaluation of the thing itself. |
| False analogy | A property of one thing is transferred to another based on their similarity in other respects, without establishing that this specific property follows from those shared features. |
| Petitio principii | A premise silently assumes the conclusion, often by restating it in different words, changing scope, or relying on an unexamined assumption that is itself in dispute. |
| Appeal to consequences | A factual claim is argued to be true or false from the consequences it would have if it were true or false (“if X is true, bad things follow – so X is false”; “if X were false, good things would follow – so X is true”). |
| Wishful thinking | Accepting a claim as true, or treating weak evidence as decisive, simply because truth of the claim is desirable. |
| Arrival fallacy | A current problem is dismissed or deferred based on an expected future event that has little factual basis for resolving it. Special form of “wishful thinking”. |
| Slippery slope | Accepting a position is presented as inevitably triggering a chain of further (usually extreme) positions, without evidence that each step follows from the previous one. |
Ad Hominem
Attacking or undermining a person's argument by targeting the person rather than the substance of their claim.
| Fallacy | Trigger – look for… |
|---|---|
| Name-calling | Argument dismissed by insulting, berating or applying derogatory labels to the speaker rather than engaging with their reasoning. |
| Tu quoque | An accusation of hypocrisy: “you do it too” – used to dismiss a valid point because the arguer doesn't practise what they preach. |
| Nutpicking | A group is discredited by selectively highlighting its most extreme, fringe, or absurd members as if they were representative of the whole. |
| Guilt by association | A person or group is discredited because of their associations, affiliations, or connections – not because of the argument itself. |
| Self-aggrandizement | A speaker elevates themselves or their in-group with an unearned positive label to implicitly diminish the opponent's capacity or qualification. |
| Appeal to motive | A claim is dismissed by attributing an external motive (interest, bias, emotion) to the person making it – explicitly or implied – instead of addressing the substance of the argument. |
| Ad feminam | Argument dismissed by referencing the speaker's female sex – via stereotypes (irrational, emotional), biological insinuations (hormones), or gendered knowledge claims. |
| Ad virum | Argument dismissed by referencing the speaker's male sex – via stereotypes (privileged, aggressive), demographic identity claims, or blanket exclusion of men from a topic. |
| Ad hominem | An argument's validity is challenged or undermined by attacking the person who makes it – their character, identity, motives, associations, or behaviour – instead of addressing the substance of the claim. |
Rhetoric
Tactical moves that derail, deflect, or shut down a discussion by redirecting attention away from the substance of the argument.
| Fallacy | Trigger – look for… |
|---|---|
| Whataboutism | A specific criticism is deflected by pointing to other groups' similar or worse actions, with the effect of blocking any resolution of the original issue. |
| Strawman argument | The opponent's argument or position is replaced with a distorted, oversimplified, or fabricated version, and that weaker version is refuted as if it were the original claim. |
| Appeal to Emotion | A position is supported primarily or exclusively by an appeal to the audience's emotions (pity, fear, outrage, guilt, hope, pride, flattery) rather than by factual arguments. |
| Argument by Emotion | The speaker's own emotional state (hurt, sadness, anger) is used as pressure – often inducing guilt – to make the counterpart concede or drop a point, rather than as an argument. Specialised form of “appeal to emotion”. |
| Argumentum ad baculum | A position of power is used to make the counterpart concede: an explicit or implicit threat of negative consequences (harm, punishment, loss of benefits, social damage) is used instead of reasons. |
| No true Scotsman | A universal claim about a group is rescued from a counterexample by redefining membership with an ad hoc purity criterion (“no true/real X…”). |
| Gish gallop | A large number of claims, arguments, or citations presented simultaneously (or in rapid succession) to overwhelm the counterpart's capacity for individual rebuttal – quantity over quality. |
| Tone policing | An argument's content is dismissed or invalidated because of how it was expressed – emotional intensity, volume, perceived rudeness – instead of engaging with the substance. |
#TODO: More entries are planned.
#END.