http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

INDEX[size=6]
[/size]

[color=#0000ff]Fallacies of Distraction[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/welcome.htm)

[color=#0000ff]False Dilemma[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm): two choices are given when in fact there are three options
[color=#0000ff]From Ignorance[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm): because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false
[color=#0000ff]Slippery Slope[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm): a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn
[color=#0000ff]Complex Question[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/cq.htm): two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition
Appeals to [color=#0000ff]Motives[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/motive.htm) in Place of Support

[color=#0000ff]Appeal to Force[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/af.htm): the reader is persuaded to agree by force
[color=#0000ff]Appeal to Pity[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/ap.htm): the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy
[color=#0000ff]Consequences[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/conseq.htm): the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences
[color=#0000ff]Prejudicial Language[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pl.htm): value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author
[color=#0000ff]Popularity[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm): a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true
Changing the [color=#0000ff]Subject[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/subject.htm)

[color=#0000ff]Attacking the Person[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm):

(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached

[color=#0000ff]Appeal to Authority[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm):


(1) the authority is not an expert in the field
(2) experts in the field disagree
(3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious

[color=#0000ff]Anonymous Authority[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/anon.htm): the authority in question is not named
[color=#0000ff]Style Over Substance[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/style.htm): the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion
[color=#0000ff]Inductive[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/induct.htm) Fallacies


[color=#0000ff]Hasty Generalization[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/hasty.htm): the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population
[color=#0000ff]Unrepresentative Sample[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/unrep.htm): the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole
[color=#0000ff]False Analogy[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm): the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar
[color=#0000ff]Slothful Induction[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/sloth.htm): the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary
[color=#0000ff]Fallacy of Exclusion[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/exclus.htm): evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration
Fallacies Involving [color=#0000ff]Statistical[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/stat.htm) Syllogisms

[color=#0000ff]Accident[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/accident.htm): a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception
[color=#0000ff]Converse Accident [/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/convacc.htm): an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply
[color=#0000ff]Causal Fallacies[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/causal.htm)

[color=#0000ff]Post Hoc[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/posthoc.htm): because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other
[color=#0000ff]Joint effect[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/joint.htm): one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause
[color=#0000ff]Insignificant[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/insig.htm): one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect
[color=#0000ff]Wrong Direction[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/wrong.htm): the direction between cause and effect is reversed
[color=#0000ff]Complex Cause[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/complex.htm): the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect
Missing the [color=#0000ff]Point[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/point.htm)

[color=#0000ff]Begging the Question[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm): the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises
[color=#0000ff]Irrelevant Conclusion[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/irrelev.htm): an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion
[color=#0000ff]Straw Man[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm): the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument
Fallacies of [color=#0000ff]Ambiguity[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/ambig.htm)

[color=#0000ff]Equivocation[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/equiv.htm): the same term is used with two different meanings
[color=#0000ff]Amphiboly[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/amphib.htm): the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations
[color=#0000ff]Accent[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/accent.htm): the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says
[color=#0000ff]Category[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/category.htm) Errors

[color=#0000ff]Composition[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/compos.htm): because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property
[color=#0000ff]Division[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/div.htm): because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property
[color=#0000ff]Non Sequitur[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/nonseq.htm)

[color=#0000ff]Affirming the Consequent[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/affirm.htm): any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
[color=#0000ff]Denying the Antecedent[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/deny.htm): any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B
[color=#0000ff]Inconsistency[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/incon.htm): asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true
[color=#0000ff]Syllogistic[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/syllog.htm) Errors

[color=#800080]Fallacy of Four Terms[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/four.htm): a syllogism has four terms
[color=#0000ff]Undistributed Middle[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/undist.htm): two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property
[color=#0000ff]Illicit Major[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/illmaj.htm): the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate
[color=#0000ff]Illicit Minor[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/illmaj.htm): the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject
[color=#0000ff]Fallacy of Exclusive Premises[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/exclus.htm): a syllogism has two negative premises
[color=#0000ff]Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/dacnp.htm): as the name implies
[color=#0000ff]Existential Fallacy[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/existen.htm): a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises

[color=#0000ff]Fallacies of Explanation[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/explan/welcome.htm)

[color=#0000ff]Subverted Support[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/explan/subsup.htm) (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist)
[color=#0000ff]Non-support[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/explan/nonsup.htm) (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)
[color=#0000ff]Untestability[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/explan/untest.htm) (The theory which explains cannot be tested)
[color=#0000ff]Limited Scope[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/explan/liscope.htm) (The theory which explains can only explain one thing)
[color=#0000ff]Limited Depth[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/explan/lidepth.htm) (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes)
[color=#0000ff]Fallacies of Definition[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/define/welcome.htm)

[color=#0000ff]Too Broad[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/define/broad.htm) (The definition includes items which should not be included)
[color=#0000ff]Too Narrow[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/define/narrow.htm) (The definition does not include all the items which shouls be included)
[color=#0000ff]Failure to Elucidate[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/define/failure.htm) (The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined)
[color=#0000ff]Circular Definition[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/define/circle.htm) (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition)
[color=#0000ff]Conflicting Conditions[/color] (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/define/conflict.htm) (The definition is self-contradictory)

All this coming from the master of the sideshow, MOMUS the Third.

Kind of like Abe Foxman calling Alan Greenspan a jew, don't ya think?



...

Yeah, well, I thought seriously about appending your name and ilk but chose to concentrate on Doc because the skills come naturally to him. You learn them in kikeskool.

[QUOTE=Anima Eternae]All this coming from the master of the sideshow, MOMUS the Third.

Kind of like Abe Foxman calling Alan Greenspan a jew, don't ya think?



...[/QUOTE]