Logical Fallacies
A practical logical-fallacies reference with clear explanations, usable examples, and teaching tools.
Category
Arguments that overstate what the evidence shows, ignore what is missing, or misuse support.
Occurs when someone treats a failure to find expected evidence as if it counted for nothing against the claim, even in a context where the claim should leave detectable t...
Occurs when support for part of a view, or problems with part of a view, are treated as if they force total acceptance or total rejection of the whole package.
Occurs when a vivid personal story, testimonial, or isolated case is treated as stronger evidence than broader, better, or more representative evidence.
Occurs when a claim is treated as true or weighty mainly because the person promoting it has impressive accomplishments in some other domain.
Occurs when someone treats an authority's endorsement as if it settled the issue, even when the authority is unqualified, the field is divided, or the claim still require...
Occurs when someone treats the desirability or undesirability of a conclusion as if it were evidence that the conclusion is true or false.
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 something is treated as better mainly because it is new, cutting-edge, or marketed as the future.
Occurs when a claim or practice is defended mainly because it has a long history, customary status, or familiar place in a community.
Occurs when someone infers that because a particular argument for a conclusion is weak or fallacious, the conclusion itself must therefore be false.
Occurs when someone concludes that a claim is true because it has not been disproved, or false because it has not been proved.
Occurs when someone treats their inability to imagine, explain, or believe a claim as evidence that the claim must be false, or conversely true.
Occurs when a claim is treated as validated because opponents, authorities, or witnesses did not deny it, respond to it, or mention it.
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 the wording of a negative position is manipulated so that mere non-belief is treated as if it were the same thing as a strong positive denial.
Occurs when a claim is accepted or dismissed because of some irrelevant association rather than because of the merits of the claim itself.
Occurs when a contested claim is simply asserted, often confidently, without the evidence needed to justify 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 destruction or forced replacement is treated as an economic gain because the visible spending is counted while the unseen losses and forgone alternatives are...
Occurs when someone selects only the evidence that supports a conclusion and ignores a wider body of evidence that weakens, qualifies, or reverses it.
Occurs when an idea is dismissed mainly because it is old, premodern, or associated with a period that also held many false beliefs.
Occurs when a feedback loop is treated as if it fully explains, proves, or justifies a result, even though the loop may be contingent, breakable, or not sufficient for th...
Occurs when a speaker's certainty, intensity, or felt conviction is treated as if it were evidence that the claim is true.
Occurs when strong evidence for a phenomenon is rejected solely because the underlying mechanism is still incomplete, disputed, or not yet fully understood.
Occurs when someone tries to protect a claim by insisting that critics must prove the claim false instead of the claimant first supplying adequate support.
Occurs when belief is forced into crude either-or boxes even though the evidence supports a range of confidence levels rather than a single sharp threshold.
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 the psychological or social effects of believing something are treated as evidence that the thing believed in actually exists or is true.
Occurs when support for a claim is borrowed from a source that is fabricated, misquoted, unqualified, anonymous in the wrong way, or otherwise not what it is presented to...
Occurs when a dispute is presented as if the competing sides were roughly equal in credibility or evidential support even though the evidence is not remotely balanced.
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 someone draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence, too small a sample, or a badly skewed sample.
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 different comparison targets are used across different dimensions to create the illusion of one all-around winner.
Occurs when labor-saving technology is treated as if it must reduce total employment or human usefulness simply because it automates some existing tasks.
Occurs when a striking anecdote or emotionally intense case is used to make a problem seem more common, clear, or representative than the broader evidence allows.
Occurs when evidence that was supposed to satisfy a stated standard is dismissed and a new, harder standard is introduced so the conclusion never has to be reconsidered.
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 useful solution is dismissed because it does not fully solve the problem or because some flaws would remain afterward.
Occurs when evidence for one claim is illegitimately used as if it also confirmed a second claim that merely travels alongside it.
Occurs when one or a few examples are offered as if they were enough to establish a universal claim.
Occurs when someone demands empirical evidence before rejecting a concept that is already incoherent, self-contradictory, or logically impossible on its own terms.
Occurs when the desirability, comfort, or emotional appeal of an outcome is treated as if that were evidence that the outcome is true, feasible, or justified.
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 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 conclusions are drawn from the visible successes that made it through a filter while the failures, dropouts, or non-survivors are ignored.
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 each new claim is treated as if the relevant history of prior failures, hoaxes, or false alarms did not exist and should confer no default expectation at all.
Occurs when criticism is answered not by engaging the issue, but by pointing to similar hypocrisy or wrongdoing elsewhere.
Occurs when someone treats one wrong act as justified because it responds to, retaliates against, or balances out another wrong.
Occurs when a belief or decision is driven mainly by what would be pleasing, hopeful, or comforting if true rather than by what the evidence supports.
Occurs when testimony is padded by unverifiable references to other alleged witnesses, creating the illusion of corroboration without actually providing independent suppo...