Fallacy

A fallacy is the use of invalid orotherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrongmoves"[1] in the construction of anargument.[2][3] A fallacious argument maybe deceptive by appearing to be betterthan it really is. Some fallacies arecommitted intentionally to manipulate orpersuade by deception, while others arecommitted unintentionally due tocarelessness or ignorance. Thesoundness of legal arguments depends

on the context in which the argumentsare made.[4]

Fallacies are commonly divided into"formal" and "informal". A formal fallacycan be expressed neatly in a standardsystem of logic, such as propositionallogic,[2] while an informal fallacyoriginates in an error in reasoning otherthan an improper logical form.[5]

Arguments containing informal fallaciesmay be formally valid, but stillfallacious.[6]

A special case is a mathematical fallacy,an intentionally invalid mathematicalproof, often with the error subtle and

somehow concealed. Mathematicalfallacies are typically crafted andexhibited for educational purposes,usually taking the form of spuriousproofs of obvious contradictions.

Fallacies are defects that weakenarguments. Fallacious arguments arevery common and can be persuasive incommon use. They may be even"unsubstantiated assertions that areoften delivered with a conviction thatmakes them sound as though they areproven facts".[7] Informal fallacies in

Overview

particular are found frequently in massmedia such as television andnewspapers.[8] It is important tounderstand what fallacies are so that onecan recognize them in either one's own orothers' writing. Avoiding fallacies willstrengthen one's ability to produce strongarguments.

It can be difficult to evaluate whether anargument is fallacious, as argumentsexist along a continuum of soundnessand an argument that has several stagesor parts might have some soundsections and some fallacious ones.[9]

"Fallacious arguments usually have thedeceptive appearance of being goodarguments."[10] Recognizing fallacies ineveryday arguments may be difficultsince arguments are often embedded inrhetorical patterns that obscure thelogical connections between statements.Informal fallacies may also exploit theemotional, intellectual, or psychologicalweaknesses of the audience.Recognizing fallacies can developreasoning skills to expose the weakerlinks between premises and conclusionsto better discern between what appearsto be true and what is true.

Argumentation theory provides adifferent approach to understanding andclassifying fallacies. In this approach, anargument is regarded as an interactiveprotocol between individuals thatattempts to resolve their disagreements.The protocol is regulated by certain rulesof interaction, so violations of these rulesare fallacies.

Fallacies are used in place of validreasoning to communicate a point withthe intention to persuade. Examples inthe mass media today include but are notlimited to propaganda, advertisements,

politics, newspaper editorials andopinion-based “news” shows.

Because of their variety of structure andapplication, fallacies are challenging toclassify so as to satisfy all practitioners.Fallacies can be classified strictly byeither their structure or their content,such as classifying them as formalfallacies or informal fallacies,respectively. The classification ofinformal fallacies may be subdivided intocategories such as linguistic, relevancethrough omission, relevance through

Systems of classification

intrusion, and relevance throughpresumption.[11] On the other hand,fallacies may be classified by theprocess by which they occur, such asmaterial fallacies (content), verbalfallacies (linguistic), and again formalfallacies (error in inference). In turn,material fallacies may be placed into themore general category of informalfallacies. Yet, verbal fallacies may beplaced in either formal or informalclassifications; compare equivocationwhich is a word or phrase basedambiguity, e. g. "he is mad", which mayrefer to either him being angry orclinically insane, to the fallacy of

composition which is premise andinference based ambiguity, e. g. "thismust be a good basketball team becauseeach of its members is an outstandingplayer".[12]

Even the definitions of the classes maynot be unique. For example, Whatelytreats material fallacies as acomplement to logical fallacies, whichmakes them synonymous to informalfallacies, while others consider them tobe a subclass of informal fallacies, likementioned above.

Aristotle …

Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 – 322BC) was the first to systematize logicalerrors into a list, as being able to refutean opponent's thesis is one way ofwinning an argument.[13]:2 Aristotle's"Sophistical Refutations" (De SophisticisElenchis) identifies thirteen fallacies. Hedivided them up into two major types,linguistic fallacies and non-linguisticfallacies, some depending on languageand others that do not depend onlanguage.[14][15] These fallacies are calledverbal fallacies and material fallacies,respectively. A material fallacy is an errorin what the arguer is talking about, whilea verbal fallacy is an error in how the

arguer is talking. Verbal fallacies arethose in which a conclusion is obtainedby improper or ambiguous use ofwords.[16] An example of a languagedependent fallacy is given as a debate asto who amongst humanity are learners:the wise or the ignorant.[13]:3 A language-independent fallacy is for example:

1. "Coriscus is different fromSocrates."

2. "Socrates is a man."

3. "Therefore, Coriscus is differentfrom a man."[13]:4

Whately's grouping …

English scholar and theologian RichardWhately (1787 – 1863) defines a fallacybroadly as, "any argument, or apparentargument, which professes to be decisiveof the matter at hand, while in reality it isnot".[13]:8

Whately divided fallacies into twogroups: logical and material. According toWhately, logical fallacies are argumentswhere the conclusion does not followfrom the premises. Material fallacies arenot logical errors because the conclusiondoes follow from the premises. He thendivided the logical group into two groups:purely logical and semi-logical. The semi-

logical group included all of Aristotle'ssophisms except:ignoratio elenchi, petitioprincipii, and non causa pro causa, whichare in the material group.[17]

Other systems of classification

Of other classifications of fallacies ingeneral the most famous are those ofFrancis Bacon and J. S. Mill. Bacon(Novum Organum, Aph. 33, 38 sqq.)divided fallacies into four Idola (Idols, i.e.False Appearances), which summarizethe various kinds of mistakes to whichthe human intellect is prone. With theseshould be compared the Offendicula of

…

Roger Bacon, contained in the Opusmaius, pt. i. J. S. Mill discussed thesubject in book v. of his Logic, andJeremy Bentham's Book of Fallacies(1824) contains valuable remarks. SeeRd. Whateley's Logic, bk. v.; A. deMorgan, Formal Logic (1847); A.Sidgwick, Fallacies (1883) and othertextbooks.

A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logicalfallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it doesnot follow") is a flaw in the structure of adeductive argument which renders the

Formal fallacy

argument invalid. The flaw can neatly beexpressed in standard system of logic.[2]

Such an argument is always consideredto be wrong. The presence of the formalfallacy does not imply anything about theargument's premises or its conclusion.Both may actually be true, or may evenbe more probable as a result of theargument; but the deductive argument isstill invalid because the conclusion doesnot follow from the premises in themanner described.

By extension, an argument can contain aformal fallacy even if the argument is nota deductive one: for instance, an

inductive argument that incorrectlyapplies principles of probability orcausality can be said to commit a formalfallacy. "Since deductive argumentsdepend on formal properties andinductive arguments don't, formalfallacies apply only to deductivearguments."[5]

A logical form such as "A and B" isindependent of any particularconjunction of meaningful propositions.Logical form alone can guarantee thatgiven true premises, a true conclusionmust follow. However, formal logicmakes no such guarantee if any premise

is false; the conclusion can be either trueor false. Any formal error or logicalfallacy similarly invalidates the deductiveguarantee. Both the argument and all itspremises must be true for a statement tobe true.

The term logical fallacy is in a sense self-contradictory, because logic refers tovalid reasoning, whereas a fallacy is theuse of poor reasoning. Therefore, theterm formal fallacy is preferred. Ininformal discourse however, logicalfallacy is used to mean an argumentwhich is problematic for any reason.

The term non sequitur denotes a generalformal fallacy, often meaning one whichdoes not belong to any named subclassof formal fallacies like affirming theconsequent.

Common examples

Ecological fallacy

An ecological fallacy is committed whenone draws an inference from data basedon the premise that qualities observedfor groups necessarily hold forindividuals; for example, "if countries withmore Protestants tend to have higher

…

…

suicide rates, then Protestants must bemore likely to commit suicide."[18]

Fallacy fork

Maarten Boudry argues that formal,deductive fallacies rarely occur in real lifeand that arguments that would befallacious in formally deductive terms arenot necessarily so when context andprior probabilities are taken into account,thus making the argument defeasibleand inductive. For a given fallacy, onemust either characterize it by means of adeductive argumentation schema, whichrarely applies (the first prong of the fork)

…

or one must relax definitions and addnuance to take the actual intent andcontext of the argument into account(the other prong of the fork). To argue,for example, that one became nauseatedafter eating a mushroom because themushroom was poisonous could be anexample of the post hoc ergo propter hocfallacy unless one were actually arguinginductively and probabilistically that it islikely that the mushroom caused theillness since some mushrooms arepoisonous, it is possible to misidentify amushroom as edible, one doesn't usuallyfeel nauseated, etc.[19]

In contrast to a formal fallacy, aninformal fallacy originates in a reasoningerror other than a flaw in the logical formof the argument.[5] A deductive argumentcontaining an informal fallacy may beformally valid,[6] but still remain rationallyunpersuasive. Nevertheless, informalfallacies apply to both deductive andnon-deductive arguments.

Though the form of the argument may berelevant, fallacies of this type are the"types of mistakes in reasoning that arisefrom the mishandling of the content of

Informal fallacy

the propositions constituting theargument".[20]

Faulty generalization

A special subclass of the informalfallacies is the set of faultygeneralizations, also known as inductivefallacies. Here the most important issueconcerns inductive strength ormethodology (for example, statisticalinference). In the absence of sufficientevidence, drawing conclusions based oninduction is unwarranted and fallacious.With the backing of empirical evidence,however, the conclusions may become

…

warranted and convincing (at which pointthe arguments are no longer consideredfallacious).

Hasty generalization

For instance, hasty generalization ismaking assumptions about a wholegroup or range of cases based on asample that is inadequate (usuallybecause it is atypical or just too small).Stereotypes about people ("frat boys aredrunkards", "grad students are nerdy","women don’t enjoy sports", etc.) are acommon example of the principle.

…

Hasty generalisation often follows apattern such as:

X is true for A.X is true for B.Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.

While never a valid logical deduction, ifsuch an inference can be made onstatistical grounds, it may nonethelessbe convincing. This is because withenough empirical evidence, thegeneralization is no longer a hasty one.

Relevance fallacy …

The fallacies of relevance are a broadclass of informal fallacies, genericallyrepresented by missing the point:presenting an argument, which may besound, but fails to address the issue inquestion.

Argumentum ex silentio

An argument from silence features anunwarranted conclusion advanced basedon the absence of data.

Examples of informal fallacies

Post hoc (false cause)

…

…

…

This fallacy gets its name from the Latinphrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc",which translates as "after this, thereforebecause of this". Definition: Assumingthat because B comes after A, A causedB. Sometimes one event really doescause another one that comes later—forexample, if one registers for a class, andtheir name later appears on the roll, it'strue that the first event caused the onethat came later. But sometimes twoevents that seem related in time are notreally related as cause and event. That is,temporal correlation does notnecessarily entail causation. Forexample, if I ate a sandwich and then I

got food poisoning, that does notnecessarily mean the sandwich gave mefood poisoning. It is possible that I couldhave eaten something else earlier thatcaused the food poisoning.

Slippery slope

Definition: The arguer claims that a sortof chain reaction, usually ending in somedire consequence, will take place, but infact there is not enough evidence for thatassumption. The arguer asserts that ifwe take even one step onto the "slipperyslope," we will end up sliding all the wayto the bottom; they assume we can't stophalfway down the hill.[21]

…

False analogy

This error in reasoning occurs whenclaims are supported by unsoundcomparisons, hence the false analogy'sinformal nickname of the "apples andoranges" fallacy.[22]

Some of the fallacies described abovemay be committed in the context ofmeasurement. Where mathematicalfallacies are subtle mistakes in reasoningleading to invalid mathematical proofs,measurement fallacies are unwarrantedinferential leaps involved in the

…

Measurement fallacy

extrapolation of raw data to ameasurement-based value claim. Theancient Greek Sophist Protagoras wasone of the first thinkers to propose thathumans can generate reliablemeasurements through his "human-measure" principle and the practice ofdissoi logoi (arguing multiple sides of anissue).[23][24] This history helps explainwhy measurement fallacies are informedby informal logic and argumentationtheory.

Knowledge value measurementfallacy …

The increasing availability and circulationof big data are driving a proliferation ofnew metrics for scholarly authority,[25][26]

and there is lively discussion regardingthe relative usefulness of such metricsfor measuring the value of knowledgeproduction in the context of an"information tsunami".[27]

For example, anchoring fallacies canoccur when unwarranted weight is givento data generated by metrics that thearguers themselves acknowledge isflawed. For example, limitations of thejournal impact factor (JIF) are welldocumented,[28] and even JIF pioneer

Eugene Garfield notes, "while citationdata create new tools for analyses ofresearch performance, it should bestressed that they supplement ratherthan replace other quantitative-andqualitative-indicators."[29] To the extentthat arguers jettison acknowledgedlimitations of JIF-generated data inevaluative judgments, or leave behindGarfield's "supplement rather thanreplace" caveat, they court commissionof anchoring fallacies.

A naturalistic fallacy can occur forexample in the case of sheer quantitymetrics based on the premise "more is

better"[27] or, in the case ofdevelopmental assessment in the field ofpsychology, "higher is better."[30]

A false analogy occurs when claims aresupported by unsound comparisonsbetween data points. For example, theScopus and Web of Science bibliographicdatabases have difficulty distinguishingbetween citations of scholarly work thatare arms-length endorsements,ceremonial citations, or negativecitations (indicating the citing authorwithholds endorsement of the citedwork).[25] Hence, measurement-basedvalue claims premised on the uniform

quality of all citations may be questionedon false analogy grounds.

As another example, consider the FacultyScholarly Productivity Index of AcademicAnalytics. This tool purports to measureoverall faculty productivity, yet it does notcapture data based on citations in books.This creates a possibility that lowproductivity measurements using thetool commit argument from silencefallacies, to the extent that suchmeasurements are supported by theabsence of book citation data.

Ecological fallacies can be committedwhen one measures scholarly

productivity of a sub-group of individuals(e.g. "Puerto Rican" faculty) via referenceto aggregate data about a larger anddifferent group (e.g. "Hispanic"faculty).[31]

Sometimes a speaker or writer uses afallacy intentionally. In any context,including academic debate, aconversation among friends, politicaldiscourse, advertising, or for comedicpurposes, the arguer may use fallaciousreasoning to try to persuade the listeneror reader, by means other than offering

Intentional fallacy

relevant evidence, that the conclusion istrue.

Examples of this include the speaker orwriter:[32]

1. Diverting the argument to unrelatedissues with a red herring (Ignoratioelenchi)

2. Insulting someone's character(argumentum ad hominem)

3. Assume the conclusion of anargument, a kind of circularreasoning, also called "begging thequestion" (petitio principii)

4. Making jumps in logic (non sequitur)

5. Identifying a false cause and effect(post hoc ergo propter hoc)

6. Asserting that everyone agrees(argumentum ad populum,bandwagoning)

7. Creating a "false dilemma" ("either-or fallacy") in which the situation isoversimplified

8. Selectively using facts (cardstacking)

9. Making false or misleadingcomparisons (false equivalence andfalse analogy)

10. Generalizing quickly and sloppily(hasty generalization)

In humor, errors of reasoning are used forcomical purposes. Groucho Marx usedfallacies of amphiboly, for instance, tomake ironic statements; Gary Larson andScott Adams employed fallaciousreasoning in many of their cartoons. WesBoyer and Samuel Stoddard have writtena humorous essay teaching studentshow to be persuasive by means of awhole host of informal and formalfallacies.[33]

When someone uses logical fallaciesintentionally to mislead in academic,political, or other high-stakes contexts,the breach of trust calls into question the

authority and intellectual integrity of thatperson.[34]

According to the pragmatic theory,[35] afallacy can in some instances be acareless error, the unintentional use of aheuristic (short version of anargumentation scheme) to jump to aconclusion. However, more worryingly, inother instances it is a tactic or ployintentionally used inappropriately inargumentation to try to win an argumentunfairly. There are always two parties to

Assessment — pragmatictheory

an argument containing a fallacy — theperpetrator and the intended victim.

The dialogue framework required tosupport the pragmatic theory of fallacy isbuilt on the presumption thatargumentative dialogue has both anadversarial component and acollaborative component. A dialogue hasindividual goals for each participant, butalso collective (shared) goals that applyto all participants. A fallacy of thesecond kind is seen as more than simplyviolation of a rule of reasonable dialogue.It is also a deceptive tactic ofargumentation, based on sleight-of-hand.

Aristotle explicitly compared contentiousreasoning to unfair fighting in athleticcontest. But the roots of the pragmatictheory go back even further in history tothe Sophists. The pragmatic theory findsits roots in the Aristotelian conception ofa fallacy as a sophistical refutation, butalso supports the view that many of thetypes of arguments traditionally labeledas fallacies are in fact reasonabletechniques of argumentation that can beused, in many cases, to supportlegitimate goals of dialogue. Hence onthe pragmatic approach, each caseneeds to analyzed individually, todetermine by the textual evidence

whether the argument is fallacious orreasonable.

ListsList of cognitive biases – Systematicpatterns of deviation from norm orrationality in judgment

List of fallacies – Types of reasoningthat are logically incorrect

List of memory biases – Cognitivebiases that either enhance or impairthe recall of a memory

List of paradoxes

All pages with titles containing Fallacy

See also

All pages with titles containingFallacious

Concepts

Aporia – State of puzzlement orexpression of doubt, in philosophy andrhetoric

Anti-pattern – Common response to arecurring problem that is usuallyineffective or counterproductive

Argumentation theory – Study of howconclusions are reached throughlogical reasoning; one of four rhetoricalmodes

Argument map

Association fallacy

Cognitive bias – Systematic pattern ofdeviation from norm or rationality injudgment

Cognitive distortion – An exaggeratedor irrational thought pattern involved inthe onset and perpetuation ofpsychopathological states

Critical thinking – The analysis of factsto form a judgment

Demagogue – political orator whopanders to the audiences fears andemotions

Evidence – Material supporting anassertion

Fallacies of definition

False premise – An incorrectproposition that forms the basis of anargument

False statement

Illusion – Distortion of the perceptionof reality

Inference objection – Objection to anargument based on the relationshipbetween premise and contention

Inquiry

Jumping to conclusions

Lemma

Mathematical fallacy – A certain typeof mistaken proof

Paradox – Statement that apparentlycontradicts itself

Prosecutor's fallacy – A fallacy ofstatistical reasoning typically used by aprosecutor to exaggerate the likelihoodof a criminal defendant's guilt

Sophist – Specific kind of teacher inboth Ancient Greece and in the RomanEmpire

Soundness – Logical term meaningthat an argument is valid and itspremises are true

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Truth – In accord with fact or reality

Validity – Argument whose conclusionmust be true if its premises are

Victim blaming – Social phenomenon

Works

Attacking Faulty Reasoning

Straight and Crooked Thinking

Why I Do Not Attend Case Conferences

1. van Eemeren, Frans; Garssen, Bart;Meuffels, Bert (2009). Fallacies andJudgments of ReasonableneEmpirical Research Concerning thePragma-Dialectical DiscussionRules. Dordrecht: Springer.

References

doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9 .ISBN 978-90-481-2613-2.

2. Gensler, Harry J. (2010). The A to Zof Logic. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 74.ISBN 9780810875968.

3. Woods, John (2004). "Who CaresAbout the Fallacies?". The Death ofArgument. Applied Logic Series. 32.pp. 3–23. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-2712-3_1 . ISBN 9789048167005.

4. Bustamente, Thomas; Dahlman,Christian, eds. (2015). Argumenttypes and fallacies in legalargumentation. Heidelberg: Springer

International Publishing. p. x.ISBN 978-3-319-16147-1.

5. Garns, Rudy (1997). "InformalFallacies" . Northern KentuckyUniversity. Retrieved 2013-09-10.

6. Dowden, Bradley. "Fallacy" . InternetEncyclopedia of Philosophy.Retrieved 17 February 2016.

7. McMullin, Rian E. (2000). The newhandbook of cognitive therapytechniques ([Rev. ed.] ed.). New York:W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0393703139. OCLC 41580357 .

8. McMurtry, John (December 1990)."The mass media: An analysis of

their system of fallacy". Interchange.21 (4): 49–66.doi:10.1007/BF01810092 .

9. DeLancey, Craig, Ph.D. "EvaluatingArguments—Distinguishing betweenreasonable and fallacious tactics"(PDF). oswego.edu. self-published.Archived from the original (PDF) on2013-09-03. Retrieved 7 March 2018.

10. Damer, T. Edward (2009), AttackingFaulty Reasoning: A Practical Guideto Fallacy-free Arguments (6th ed.),Belmont, California: Wadsworth,p. 52, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4

11. Pirie, Madsen (2006). How to WinEvery Argument: The Use and Abuseof Logic . A&C Black. p. 46.ISBN 978-0-8264-9006-3. Retrieved10 September 2015.

12. "fallacy" . Encyclopedia Britannica.Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved13 June 2017.

13. van Eemeren, Frans; Garssen, Bart;Meuffels, Bert (2009). "1". Fallaciesand judgements of reasonableness,Empirical Research Concerning thePragma-Dialectical DiscussionRules. Dordrecht: SpringerScience+Business Media B.V.ISBN 978-90-481-2613-2.

14. "Aristotle's original 13 fallacies" .The Non Sequitur. March 13, 2008.Retrieved 28 May 2013.

15. "Aristotle's 13 fallacies" .www.logiclaw.co.uk. Archived fromthe original on 2018-07-18.Retrieved 2017-12-12.

16. "PHIL 495: Philosophical Writing(Spring 2008), Texas A&MUniversity" . Archived from theoriginal on 2008-09-05. Retrieved2013-09-10.

17. Coffey, P. (1912). The Science ofLogic . Longmans, Green, and

Company. p. 302 . LCCN 12018756 .Retrieved 2016-02-22.

18. Freedman, David A. (2004)."Ecological Fallacy". In Lewis-Beck,Michael S.; Bryman, Alan; Liao, TimFuting (eds.). Encyclopedia of SocialScience Research Methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 293–295. ISBN 978-0761923633.

19. Boudry, Maarten (2017). "The FallacyFork: Why It's Time to Get Rid ofFallacy Theory". Skeptical Inquirer.41 (5): 46–51.

20. Copi, Irving M.; Cohen, Carl (2005).Introduction to Logic (12 ed.).

Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 978-0-13-189834-9. p.125

21. "The Most Common LogicalFallacies" .www.webpages.uidaho.edu.Retrieved 2017-12-12.

22. Kornprobst, Markus (2007)."Comparing Apples and Oranges?Leading and Misleading Uses ofHistorical Analogies". Millennium —Journal of International Studies. 36:29–49.doi:10.1177/03058298070360010301 .

23. Schiappa, Edward (1991).Protagoras and Logos: A Study inGreek Philosophy and Rhetoric.Columbia, SC: University of SouthCarolina Press. ISBN 978-0872497580.

24. Protagoras (1972). The OlderSophists . Indianapolis, IN: HackettPublishing Co. ISBN 978-0872205567.

25. Meho, Lokman I. (2007). "The Riseand Rise of Citation Analysis".Physics World. January: 32–36.arXiv:physics/0701012 .Bibcode:2007physics...1012M .doi:10.1088/2058-7058/20/1/33 .

26. Jensen, Michael (June 15, 2007).Riley, Michael G. (ed.). "The NewMetrics of Scholarly Authority" . TheChronicle of Higher Education. TheChron. ISSN 0009-5982 .OCLC 1554535 . Retrieved28 October 2013.

27. Baveye, Phillippe C. (2010). "StickerShock and Looming Tsunami: TheHigh Cost of Academic Serials inPerspective". Journal of ScholarlyPublishing. 41 (2): 191–215.doi:10.1353/scp.0.0074 .

28. National Communication Journal(2013). Impact Factors, JournalQuality, and Communication

Journals: A Report for the Council ofCommunication Associations (PDF).Washington, D.C.: NationalCommunication Association.Archived from the original (PDF) onApril 4, 2016. Retrieved 2016-02-22.

29. Garfield, Eugene (1993). "WhatCitations Tell us About CanadianResearch". Canadian Journal ofLibrary and Information Science. 18(4): 34.

30. Stein, Zachary (October 2008). "MythBusting and Metric Making:Refashioning the Discourse aboutDevelopment" . Integral LeadershipReview. 8 (5). Archived from the

original on October 30, 2013.Retrieved October 28, 2013.

31. Allen, Henry L. (1997). "FacultyWorkload and Productivity: Ethnicand Gender Disparities" (PDF). NEA1997 Almanac of Higher Education:39. Retrieved October 29, 2013.

32. Shewan, Edward (2003). "Soundnessof Argument" . Applications ofGrammar: Principles of EffectiveCommunication (2nd ed.). ChristianLiberty Press. ISBN 978-1-930367-28-9. Retrieved February 22, 2016.

33. Boyer, Web; Stoddard, Samuel. "Howto Be Persuasive" . Rink Works.

C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies, MethuenLondon, 1970. reprinted by Vale Press

Archived from the original on July27, 2018. Retrieved December 5,2012.

34. Habick, Timothy, and Linda Cook.(2018) AICPA Test DevelopmentFairness Guidelines. Association ofInternational Certified PublicAccounts, Ewing, NJ.

35. Walton, Douglas N. (1995). APragmatic Theory of Fallacy .Tuscaloosa: University of AlabamaPress. p. 324. ISBN 9780817307981.

Further reading

in 1998 as ISBN 0-916475-24-7.

Hans V. Hansen; Robert C. Pinto(1995). Fallacies: classical andcontemporary readings. Penn StatePress. ISBN 978-0-271-01417-3.

Frans van Eemeren; Bart Garssen; BertMeuffels (2009). Fallacies andJudgments of Reasonableness:Empirical Research Concerning thePragma-Dialectical Discussion.Springer. ISBN 978-90-481-2613-2.

Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: Ahandbook for critical argumentation.Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Douglas, Walton (1987). InformalFallacies. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Walton, Douglas (1995). A PragmaticTheory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.

Walton, Douglas (2010). "Why FallaciesAppear to Be Better Arguments thanThey Are" . Informal Logic. 30 (2):159–184. doi:10.22329/il.v30i2.2868 .

John Woods (2004). The death ofargument: fallacies in agent basedreasoning. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-2663-8.

Fearnside, W. Ward and William B.Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit ofArgument, 1959.

Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: ACrash Course in Reflection andExpression, New York: Automatic Press/ VIP, 2005, ISBN 87-991013-7-8

D. H. Fischer, Historians' Fallacies:Toward a Logic of Historical Thought,Harper Torchbooks, 1970.

Warburton Nigel, Thinking from A to Z,Routledge 1998.

Sagan, Carl, "The Demon-HauntedWorld: Science As a Candle in the Dark".Ballantine Books, March 1997 ISBN 0-

345-40946-9, 480 pgs. 1996 hardbackedition: Random House, ISBN 0-394-53512-X, xv+457 pages plus addendainsert (some printings). Ch.12.

Historical texts

Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations ,De Sophistici Elenchi.library.adelaide.edu.au

William of Ockham, Summa of Logic(ca. 1323) Part III.4.

John Buridan, Summulae de dialecticaBook VII.

Francis Bacon, the doctrine of the idolsin Novum Organum Scientiarum,Aphorisms concerning The

…

Interpretation of Nature and theKingdom of Man, XXIIIff .fly.hiwaay.net

Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art ofControversy | Die Kunst, Recht zubehalten - The Art Of Controversy(bilingual) , (also known as"Schopenhauers 38 stratagems").gutenberg.net

John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic -Raciocinative and Inductive . Book 5,Chapter 7, Fallacies of Confusion .la.utexas.edu

External links

Look up fallacy in Wiktionary, the freedictionary.

Wikiquote has quotations related to:Fallacy

Wikiversity has learning resourcesabout Recognizing Fallacies

Hansen, Hans. "Fallacies" . In Zalta,Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopediaof Philosophy.

Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Informallogic" . Stanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy.

"Fallacy" . Internet Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy.

Fallacy at PhilPapers

FallacyFiles.org categorization offallacies with examples

The Fallacy Files: Informal Fallacy

Nikzor.org - 42 informal logicalfallacies explained by Dr. Michael C.Labossiere (including examples)

Humbug! The skeptic's field guide tospotting fallacies in thinking  –textbook on fallacies. scribd.com

List of fallacies with clear examples ,infidels.org

Interactive Syllogistic Machine A webbased syllogistic machine for exploringfallacies, figures, and modes ofsyllogisms.

Logical Fallacies and the Art ofDebate , csun.edu

LogicalFallacies.Info

Stephen Downes Guide to the LogicalFallacies , onegoodmove.org

Fallacy Explained at LiteraryDevices

Donald Trump:Use Of Logical Fallacies

Explain fallacies, what they are andhow to avoid them

An Informal Fallacy Primer

LogicalFallacies.org

Last edited 4 days ago by OnBeyondZebrax

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unlessotherwise noted.

Retrieved from"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fallacy&oldid=948762765"