# History Main / LogicalFallacies

Go To

* EverythingExceptMostThings: A generalization with so many exceptions that what remains is less than impressive, if useful at all.

* OverwhelmingException: A generalization with so many exceptions that what remains is less than impressive, if useful at all.

However, inductive logic[[note]]Not to be confused with mathematical induction, which is a strictly logical, deductive method.[[\note]] involves reasonable inferences of what might be true, but not necessarily. A sidewalk could be wet due to a passing street sweeping vehicle or neighbours carelessly watering their lawns. Seeing a wet sidewalk and concluding that there was rain is fallacious--not deductively valid--but it is not necessarily false, nor is it necessarily an unreasonable inference to make.

to:

However, inductive logic[[note]]Not to be confused with mathematical induction, which is a strictly logical, deductive method.[[\note]] [[/note]] involves reasonable inferences of what might be true, but not necessarily. A sidewalk could be wet due to a passing street sweeping vehicle or neighbours carelessly watering their lawns. Seeing a wet sidewalk and concluding that there was rain is fallacious--not deductively valid--but it is not necessarily false, nor is it necessarily an unreasonable inference to make.

However, inductive logic involves reasonable inferences of what might be true, but not necessarily. A sidewalk could be wet due to a passing street sweeping vehicle or neighbours carelessly watering their lawns. Seeing a wet sidewalk and concluding that there was rain is fallacious--not deductively valid--but it is not necessarily false, nor is it necessarily an unreasonable inference to make.

to:

However, inductive logic logic[[note]]Not to be confused with mathematical induction, which is a strictly logical, deductive method.[[\note]] involves reasonable inferences of what might be true, but not necessarily. A sidewalk could be wet due to a passing street sweeping vehicle or neighbours carelessly watering their lawns. Seeing a wet sidewalk and concluding that there was rain is fallacious--not deductively valid--but it is not necessarily false, nor is it necessarily an unreasonable inference to make.

* Subjectivist Fallacy ("Well that's just like, your opinion man"): Claiming that subjectivity means all conclusions are equally valid, regardless of their underlying logic.

to:

* Subjectivist Fallacy ("Well ([[Film/TheBigLebowski "Well that's just like, your opinion man"): man"]]): Claiming that subjectivity means all conclusions are equally valid, regardless of their underlying logic.

* OriginalPositionFallacy: Assuming that advocating something is the same as benefitting from it. People advocating systems where the few benefit at the cost of the many often fall on this fallacy, as they usually have only their own interest in mind.

to:

* OriginalPositionFallacy: Assuming that advocating something is the same as benefitting from it. People advocating systems where the few they think they're going to benefit at the cost of the many often fall on this fallacy, as they from [[MoralMyopia usually have only their own interest in mind.mind]].

* Prescriptive Fallacy: Confusing something meant to be '''de'''scriptive with something meant to be '''pre'''scriptive. For example, if you were told that "a tiger is a big orange cat", and you assumed that every cat you met that was big and orange constituted a tiger, and that every tiger that wasn't neither big nor orange (e.g. a white tiger, a tiger cub etc) is not a tiger. Common issue in academia, medicine, psychology etc. when descriptive labels are wrongly taken as prescriptive criteria.

* Hypocrisy Fallacy: Where a person or their argument is dismissed on the grounds of real or imagined hypocrisy, or the hypocrisy is otherwise treated as being more relevant than it actually is.

-->-- '''Ralph Waldo Emerson'''

to:

-->-- '''Ralph Waldo Emerson'''
'''Creator/RalphWaldoEmerson'''

... The following are relevant argumentative concepts that are ''not'' fallacies:

to:

... The !!The following are relevant argumentative concepts that are ''not'' fallacies:

* TheThermianArgument: Coined by Dan Olson of ''WebVideo/FoldingIdeas'' (named after the aliens of ''Film/GalaxyQuest''), it is in a nutshell: if there is an alleged InUniverse explanation for a controversial thing to exist within the narrative, then it will be pointed out by the fans as a bulletproof example of "world-building" and defended to the death as such, even if it brings nothing to the story (Olson's example being a work full of Gorn-tastic violence against women made by Orcs, explained as "well, what do you expect from ''Orcs''?"). This is a two-edged argument, though -- just as some people may think that some HandWave can be waived as "world building" for the sake of defending the controversial part, there are critics that will wave off a strong case of world-building just because one of the main characters runs around with a ChainmailBikini.

to:

* TheThermianArgument: The Thermian Argument: Coined by Dan Olson of ''WebVideo/FoldingIdeas'' (named after the aliens of ''Film/GalaxyQuest''), it is in a nutshell: if there is an alleged InUniverse explanation for a controversial thing to exist within the narrative, then it will be pointed out by the fans as a bulletproof example of "world-building" and defended to the death as such, even if it brings nothing to the story (Olson's example being a work full of Gorn-tastic violence against women made by Orcs, explained as "well, what do you expect from ''Orcs''?"). This is a two-edged argument, though -- just as some people may think that some HandWave can be waived as "world building" for the sake of defending the controversial part, there are critics that will wave off a strong case of world-building just because one of the main characters runs around with a ChainmailBikini.

* TheThermianArgument: Coined by Dan Olson of ''WebVideo/FoldingIdeas'' (named after the aliens of ''Film/GalaxyQuest''), it is in a nutshell: if there is an alleged InUniverse explanation for a controversial thing to exist within the narrative, then it will be pointed out by the fans as a bulletproof example of "world-building" and defended to the death as such, even if it brings nothing to the story (Olson's example being a work full of Gorn-tastic violence against women made by Orcs, explained as "well, what do you expect from ''Orcs''?"). This is a two-edged argument, though -- just as some people may think that some HandWave can be waived as "world building" for the sake of defending the controversial part, there are critics that will wave off a strong case of world-building just because one of the main characters runs around with a ChainmailBikini.

* False Analogy: [[index]]Someone applies facts from one situation to another situation, but the situations are substantially different and the same conclusions cannot logically be drawn. (Ex. "[[Franchise/StarTrek The]] KobayashiMaru teaches us that there's no-win scenarios and we need to FaceDeathWithDignity" kind of hits a wall when the "no-win scenario" that teaches us this is not, say, running out of gas, but rather is an irreproducible fubar that cannot happen anywhere in the known universe and only exists because [[AIIsACrapshoot a computer]] [[KillerGameMaster determined to make you fail]] is willing [[RealityWarper to bend reality]] until you say "uncle"). The bane of the SpaceWhaleAesop.[[/index]]

to:

[[/index]]
* False Analogy: [[index]]Someone Someone applies facts from one situation to another situation, but the situations are substantially different and the same conclusions cannot logically be drawn. (Ex. "[[Franchise/StarTrek The]] KobayashiMaru teaches us that there's no-win scenarios and we need to FaceDeathWithDignity" kind of hits a wall when the "no-win scenario" that teaches us this is not, say, running out of gas, but rather is an irreproducible fubar that cannot happen anywhere in the known universe and only exists because [[AIIsACrapshoot a computer]] [[KillerGameMaster determined to make you fail]] is willing [[RealityWarper to bend reality]] until you say "uncle"). The bane of the SpaceWhaleAesop.[[/index]][[index]]

* No Limits Fallacy: [[index]]Coined by Website/StarDestroyerDotNet, it is the illogical idea that a poorly understood phenomenon can be extrapolated to infinity or assumed to not have any maximum value or threshold (ex. a shield withstands a single bullet and it is immediately assumed that utilizing MoreDakka on it is a complete waste of time, because it will just shrug them off forever). This is one of the fallacies that make an "accurate" UltimateShowdownOfUltimateDestiny conversation very heated (because this same kind of "extrapolation" can make one side render the character they support as effectively invincible without taking into account other kinds of influential details in a fight such as Murphy's Law. So if the FlyingBrick shrugs off a nuke once (although the way he survived is highly argumentative, the fact is that he did), and the StockShonenHero can't (theoretically) hit as hard as a nuke, then the Shonen Hero is as good as dead).[[/index]]

to:

[[/index]]
* No Limits Fallacy: [[index]]Coined Coined by Website/StarDestroyerDotNet, it is the illogical idea that a poorly understood phenomenon can be extrapolated to infinity or assumed to not have any maximum value or threshold (ex. a shield withstands a single bullet and it is immediately assumed that utilizing MoreDakka on it is a complete waste of time, because it will just shrug them off forever). This is one of the fallacies that make an "accurate" UltimateShowdownOfUltimateDestiny conversation very heated (because this same kind of "extrapolation" can make one side render the character they support as effectively invincible without taking into account other kinds of influential details in a fight such as Murphy's Law. So if the FlyingBrick shrugs off a nuke once (although the way he survived is highly argumentative, the fact is that he did), and the StockShonenHero can't (theoretically) hit as hard as a nuke, then the Shonen Hero is as good as dead).[[/index]]dead).
[[index]]

* Benefits Fallacy: Dismissing the argument of the other person on the grounds that they are only making it because they stand to benefit in some way from it or believe they do, rather than addressing whether or not their argument is actually sound. [[note]]Obviously, this especially applies if you only THINK they are trying to benefit; it is even worse if they are not thinking of their own benefits at all[[/note]] Example: A politician might push through a bill they don't actually care for because it increases their chances of re-election in future, but this does not mean the bill in question should not pass through.

* AppealToObscurity: Attributing an argument to someone the other party doesn't know and using the fact that they aren't known as evidence.

to:

* AppealToObscurity: Attributing Building an argument to someone out of obscure acts that might be irrelevant and incorrect, and claiming it is valid because the other party doesn't person does not know and using of the fact that they aren't known as evidence.obscure information.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 225

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/