Abstraction denial
Occurs when someone denies the reality or causal relevance of a higher-level pattern just because the pattern is realized through lower-level parts.
Logical Fallacies
A practical logical-fallacies reference with clear explanations, usable examples, and teaching tools.
Category
Errors caused by bad categories, weak distinctions, or distorted conceptual boundaries.
Occurs when someone denies the reality or causal relevance of a higher-level pattern just because the pattern is realized through lower-level parts.
Occurs when a model, law, or abstraction drawn from experience is treated as if it were a logically necessary rule that reality cannot ever depart from.
Occurs when something is praised as good, safe, or right merely because it is called natural, or condemned as bad merely because it is called unnatural.
Occurs when a claim is treated as true, reasonable, or justified mainly because many people believe it, share it, or act on it.
Occurs when a negative generalization about a group is used as if it settled the character or behavior of a specific member of that group.
Occurs when a positive generalization about a group is used as if it established the virtue or competence of a specific member of that group.
Occurs when something true of the parts is assumed to be true of the whole they compose.
Occurs when a more detailed scenario is treated as more probable than a less detailed scenario that already contains it.
Occurs when a claim is rejected simply because the concept involved has blurry boundaries rather than a perfectly sharp cutoff.
Occurs when a substantive question is illegitimately 'solved' by defining one contested concept into another.
Occurs when a hypothetical test case is dismissed as irrelevant merely because it is rare, extreme, or unlikely, even though the principle under debate is supposed to be...
Occurs when one side of a genuine contrast is denied or redefined so the opposing term has no place to apply.
Occurs when something true of a whole is assumed to be true of each part or member of that whole.
Occurs when statistics about a group are used to draw conclusions about particular individuals in that group.
Occurs when the psychological or social effects of believing something are treated as evidence that the thing believed in actually exists or is true.
Occurs when a condition that is necessary given someone's current description is treated as if it were permanently or universally necessary in the real world.
Occurs when one thing is treated as sufficiently like another even though the comparison breaks down at the point the argument depends on.
Occurs when the midpoint between two positions is treated as correct simply because it lies between them.
Occurs when someone presents a limited set of options as if they were the only live possibilities, while reasonable alternatives are ignored or suppressed.
Occurs when two things are treated as equivalent in seriousness, meaning, or explanatory weight despite relevant differences that make the comparison misleading.
Occurs when an inductive conclusion reaches further than the available evidence can reasonably support, or ignores information that should limit the generalization.
Occurs when a hypothetical premise is rejected simply because the speaker does not actually believe it.
Occurs when a claim, practice, or idea is judged mainly by its origin rather than by its present content, evidence, or merits.
Occurs when a mind-like inner observer is smuggled in to explain mind-like abilities, thereby postponing rather than solving the explanation.
Occurs when a human classification, rule, or label is treated as if it automatically determined the underlying fact or moral status.
Occurs when a view is framed so every possible outcome fits it equally well, leaving no meaningful room for the claim to fail.
Occurs when one option is called better, worse, cheaper, safer, or more effective without specifying the relevant comparison class or the other factors that matter.
Occurs when different comparison targets are used across different dimensions to create the illusion of one all-around winner.
Occurs when a descriptive claim about what is common, natural, or actual is treated as if it directly established what ought to be done.
Occurs when someone assumes that doubling the input will double the output even though the system has thresholds, saturation, feedback loops, or diminishing returns.
Occurs when something is treated as good, safe, or morally preferable mainly because it is called natural, traditional, or closer to nature.
Occurs when a realistic option is rejected because it does not solve a problem perfectly or because an imagined ideal is used as the standard of comparison.
Occurs when someone protects a generalization from counterexamples by redefining the group with an ad hoc 'real' or 'true' membership test.
Occurs when a general principle is padded with so many exceptions that it no longer guides action or says much of substance.
Occurs when traits that are often bundled together by stereotype, tradition, or habit are treated as if they must always come as a package.
Occurs when human feelings, intentions, or judgments are projected onto impersonal things and then treated as if the projection explained reality.
Occurs when a useful solution is dismissed because it does not fully solve the problem or because some flaws would remain afterward.
Occurs when a messy range of better and worse cases is collapsed into a rigid perfect-or-failed binary.
Occurs when an analogy is deliberately stretched past its intended point so it can be mocked or refuted.
Occurs when one or a few examples are offered as if they were enough to establish a universal claim.
Occurs when an abstraction is spoken of as if it were a concrete agent or thing in a way that misleads rather than merely using harmless metaphor.
Occurs when someone highlights the data cluster that supports a favored story only after looking at the results, then treats that hand-picked pattern as if it had been th...
Occurs when a complex outcome is explained as if one cause alone did the work, while other relevant causes are ignored or illegitimately minimized.
Occurs when someone claims that a relatively small first step will trigger a chain of worsening outcomes without showing why that chain is likely, stable, or hard to stop...
Occurs when someone asks for an exception to a rule or standard but does not provide a relevant reason for why the favored case should be exempt.
Occurs when one term in a meaningful contrast is redefined so broadly or so narrowly that its opposing term can no longer do any work.
Occurs when a purpose, goal, or final destination is attributed to something without adequate evidence that such an end point was built into it.
Occurs when a negative trait found in one member of a group is used to condemn the group as a whole.
Occurs when a reasonable generalization is attacked by demanding that it hold without relevant scope conditions or exceptions.
Occurs when a positive trait found in one member of a group is used to justify a positive conclusion about the group as a whole.
Occurs when testimony is padded by unverifiable references to other alleged witnesses, creating the illusion of corroboration without actually providing independent suppo...