Plain Language Fallacies of Argument
While technical vocabulary is essential for precise
speaking in formal dialogue and focused study, MOR
offers this list of fallacies as a way of presenting some
problems that people often get into when they are
arguing. Being aware of how fallacies of argument can
make us unintentionally unreasonable or lead to
misconceptions can help us to be more reasonable. See
also the section on "Reasonable People" in this website.
These fallacies fall into several categories including:
VI = veiled insistence, when a persuasive technique is
used to insist that someone agree without giving any
significant justification for doing so.
MR = Misrepresentation, whether the person using this
technique is aware of this fallacy or not, these arguments
misrepresent the links of reason, the evidence,
mathematics, or the word usage.
While technical vocabulary is essential for precise
speaking in formal dialogue and focused study, MOR
offers this list of fallacies as a way of presenting some
problems that people often get into when they are
arguing. Being aware of how fallacies of argument can
make us unintentionally unreasonable or lead to
misconceptions can help us to be more reasonable. See
also the section on "Reasonable People" in this website.
These fallacies fall into several categories including:
VI = veiled insistence, when a persuasive technique is
used to insist that someone agree without giving any
significant justification for doing so.
MR = Misrepresentation, whether the person using this
technique is aware of this fallacy or not, these arguments
misrepresent the links of reason, the evidence,
mathematics, or the word usage.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Description: A false choice is created when the
speaker misrepresents a situation by framing it as a
limitation of choices between options that are not
representative of the situation's actual options or
accurately descriptive of the implications of choice.
Often these are "one or the other" choices where many
more options exist that are better.
Problem: Although Thomas Jefferson said, “Dissent is
the greatest form of patriotism,” many in-office politicians
try to suppress dissent against their own opinions by
saying things like, “You’re either with us or against us”
and extending the implication of “us” to the nation. Such
phrases squelch open discussion that is the process of
reasoning in society. An exacerbation of this is when
people present false choices that go beyond gross
misinterpretation of situations and force people to make
choices based on metaphysical threats for which there is
no evidence but are instead based on one or another
mythical conjecture. This framing of choice takes
decision-making out of the realm of being reasonably
linked to their actual situations. Instead it makes people
act based on an imaginary framework where they
discount the effects of their actions in the real world.
Examples: “You’re either going to heaven or hell”
“You can take a risk, or you can kill them and let God
sort them out”
“Give up your civil rights to the government or lose your
freedom and way of life”
“Live in prosperity by polluting or protect the
environment.”
Winning - VI
Description: Many people consider that “winning” an
argument means vindicating one’s presumptions held at
the start of the argument.
Problem: When one has this type of “winning” as the
goal, the entire argument becomes rationalization, and
working to this type of end means laying down the goals
of reasoning right at the beginning. Reasoning instead
is the process of interacting with others so that everyone
can come to a better informed and more sound
perspective with which to make judgment. Imperative
here is that one is willing to hold one’s original position
under critical scrutiny and as tentative. When this is
achieved, better thinking is one. “Winning” for one’s
original point involves resorting to deceptive rhetorical
tricks often used in propaganda that persuade a larger
groups of people to agree rather than to first question
and then work understand better.
Example: “The death tax is unjust and cruel because it
takes away money from inheritors in a time of hardship."
Note on Example: The person speaking is not trying to
consider inheritance tax critically in its clearest
representation, but instead looks to make an
unwarranted emotional plea for justice. Inheritance tax
protects democracy by preventing an inordinate
accumulation of wealth/power that can circumvent the
democratic process, suppress positive meritocratic
dynamics, and promote aristocratic social elitism.
People subject to the inheritance tax still receive vast
sums of wealth that they have not earned and are
subject to far less hardship at that time than the average
citizen. There is no tax for dying. The inheritance tax is
a tax for receiving huge sums of money one has not
earned.
Ideas As External Objects - MR
Description: Many ideas are abstractions of things,
like: names for categories of things we make,
abstractions, personifications, or expectations. Trying to
define these things precisely as if they were external-to-
the-mind tangible things that could be objectively tested
is overlooking the fact that their definitions are reliant
on, and in practice merely is, our relative perspective
and usage of the words.
Problem: Treating ideas as external objects creates a
tacit demand that they be treated as real and external
to the mind. This type of fallacious argument is missing
the point that abstractions are defined by us out of
social convention, our own abstraction, or traditional
symbolism. Such arguments limit our ability to really
research the basis for these ideas by making the
demand that we accept the idea as something externally
real and look for them in the imaginary worlds that our
imagination can create around them rather than asking
how we formulated or inherited the idea in the first place.
Example: Arguments that start like "What is the
essence of Art?", or "What is the nature of the soul?"
Priorities As Absolutes - VI
Description: Often arguments will be structured to
distill things down to a set of ideas that are presented as
self-evident, "in and of itself", "It just has to be
accepted," or the like. This type of arguments often go
on to demand agreement as a type of name-calling, as
in "Well if you can't get it... (you're immoral; you're
oblivious; you're clueless.") But this is another form of
unjustified demand.. Demands like this are used to
cover up the inadequacies of the persons own
justifications for their priorities..Mutually agreed priorities
must be established on neutral terms before argument
begins in order to have any argument become valid.
Problem: Presenting "values," "character," "truths," and
"identities" as absolutes closes an analysis of things
that, under just a bit further examination, all have
external sources in our upbringing, choices of affiliation,
and perceptions. They change over time in both
populations and individuals, depending on
circumstances. Treating priorities as absolutes closes
our opportunity to understand these priorities. Failing to
analyze our priorities prevents us from considering the
reasonableness of holding them as based on the
outcomes of holding them. Usually, when people hold
priorities as absolute, their priorities are inadequately
examined in the light of outcomes
Example: When a person says, "I believe in my values
and their's nothing you can say that would make me
change my mind because my values are just the way
things should be." This demonstrates the person's
unwillingness to examine their own ideas and thus the
lack of reasonable basis for asserting their worth.
The Story Problem - VI
Description: When we tell a story, we expect that if we
feel we are truthful, people should take our experiences
to be real. Yet the method of generating significant
knowledge is to be skeptical of things until information
can be confirmed in significant ways. If stories contradict
everyday experience, this skepticism should naturally
increase.
Problem: Many people tell stories of outrageous or
magic-like experiences that they are unwilling to repeat
in a controlled way. This avoidance prevents (even for
themselves) the opportunity to confirm that the way they
remember the experience fits the way it might have
actually happened. Further, such analysis can confirm
or debunk the implications that they might draw from it.
Often, even the storyteller may have just misperceived
something or had a mental experience disconnected
from sensible perception and mistaken it for clear
observation. Perhaps they are linking a cause and
effect inappropriately just because things happened
near the same time. If something did occur, it may also
have occurred through other methods. When a person
gets sick for instance, confirming why one is sick would
take significant investigation instead of believing
because one remembers a threat.
Example: "I experienced the power of Voodoo magic
when a witch doctor made me sick by casting a spell
over a thousand miles away." While the person telling
the story may not have confirmed the true source of the
sickness, if a person takes this story as factual
evidence, they have fallen into the Story Problem.
Unlinked Evidence- MR
Description: Unlinked evidence is usually inherent in
claims that "if I'm right, the world would be as it is
because..." and then state some obvious fact in nature.
In such statements, the world is known and the claim is
just a conjecture that is not demonstrated to be
associated with the evidence except perhaps in
traditional legends that cannot be verified.
Problem: Conjecture is how models are created in
physics to, but it is not how models are tested. Models
that wish to have significant value must predict some
new results or evidence (precisely and tangibly enough
that there is a way of telling if the model is wrong.) They
must have demonstrable links to evidence. In the
example below, the rainbow's existence is known, but it's
relation to the idea of leprechauns, or the existence of
leprechauns at all remains untested. It's like drawing a
card and claiming to be psychic after you've turned it
over and read the face. Knowledge of the card is
unlinked to psychic abilities and does not confirm their
existence or attributes.
Example: "If there weren't any leprechauns, then
rainbows wouldn't exist to show us their pot of gold,
would they?" Easy to say, because tracking down the
end of the rainbow is much like trying to reach the
horizon. But, where's the evidence?
Skipping Ordinary Causes - MR
Description: When some event or circumstance needs
to be explained, people will often look for extraordinary
explanations in order to find the cause as something
beyond tangible confirmation or reasonable analysis.
This happens often even when ordinary causes may be
easily discovered.
Problem: When people attribute everything to their
supernatural pantheon of deities or spiritual energies, it
generally ends the investigation of ordinary evidence
that could increase understanding of an event or
situation. It also includes an implicit demand that the
event or situation is evidence for the existence of any
extraordinary claim, usually without relationship to the
ordinary details of the situation. Looking to
extraordinary explanations creates a need to present
extraordinary evidence and effort in order to confirm this
in the eyes of reasonable people. Ways of avoiding this
fallacy include acknowledging when we know little and
making the effort to investigate related ordinary
evidence before jumping to assumptions.
Example 1: "Zeus created this earthquake. We must
all have done something wrong." The ordinary answer
would be, "Oh, the earth moves occasionally because of
its own characteristics (geologically described.) Perhaps
we'd better study this and learn to predict earthquakes
so we can prepare for the next one." The second is
rather mundane and ordinary, but productive. The first
takes on the additional problem of explaining Zeus,
where he is, what causes him, and how we can confirm
that. That would take some extraordinary explanation
that is more problematic than the earthquake.
Example 2: Explaining Zeus as a fictional character
useful to society is the ordinary cause. Explaining Zeus
as a real super-powerful being that we just don't see
except in dreams, storybooks, and moments of trauma
skips the ordinary cause. One would need to clearly
discount the ordinary cause before addressing possible
extraordinary causes. Further, one would need much
more extensive verification for an extraordinary cause.
Vivid Personal Experiences As Unquestionable - VI
Description: People often have vivid experiences that
they use as the basis for selecting allegiance to groups,
acceptance of ideology, belief in myths and
metaphysical systems, judgment of other people, or
perspective on what happened yesterday.
Problem: There are really two problems. First, our
intense and vivid experiences with strong emotions are
generally the ones where we have the most perceptual
problem and bias of perspective. This is evidenced in
both science and a study of law. Second, when people
have a vivid experience, they strongly link this to
validation of new perspectives about the world they
acquired at the time, or validation of presumptions that
they brought to the situation. Just because a person's
memories of a situation are vivid doesn't mean that the
confirmation of these other assumptions about the world
are accurate. Both of these problems lead to adamant
eye witnesses in the court room that are fervently
sincere, or thrilled scientists who make earthshaking
discoveries about a new cure, both of which turn out to
be completly wrong. If we treated our own experiences
in the "vivid means real" way, we fall into the same trap.
We become sure of things and completely bypass any
feeling of need to confirm those things we take as
absolute.
Example: Often when courts proceed with methodical
investigation and due diligence, DNA and other physical
evidence demonstrates conclusively that many eye
witnesses are wrong. Scientists looking to make a
breakthrough often self-delude into finding what they
look for in the intensity of their effort, even when it is not
their. Only diligent methodical treatment and the
skeptical review of well-informed people disinterested in
the outcome can resolve what was real and what was not
in a way that overcomes this problem.
Ignorance and Surety Proves Conjecture - MR
Definition: One of the most absurd and most often
used fallacies of argument is that if one (or in particular
a person of different point of view) doesn't know for
instance "why a phenomena occurs", then any legend or
arbitrary and unsupported assumption that claims to
know why must be taken as "right," and that accepting
this is far better to simply saying, "We don't really know."
Problem: Galileo worked hard to overcome this fallacy
of Aristotle's science. He realized that when people cling
to untested answers that they inherit, or make up
answers, (like assuming that heavier objects fall faster)
they are closing the door to acknowledging our
ignorance. Without this first step of acknowledging
ignorance we are unable to see the path of exploration
that could help give us new understanding. Without
clearly and honestly addressing our own limits of
knowledge, it is hard to expand it. Any source claiming
to help extend human knowledge of the universe
credibly beyond the reach of science, must adhere to
the same rigor of openness and testability that science
does. Without doing this, it is just unconfirmed
conjecture. When sources of information can be open
to confirmation and rigorous testing, it is a contribution
to the development of science and human
understanding.
Example: "Science cannot explain the very first moment
of the big bang, but [insert your own cultural legend of
origins here] explains in no uncertain terms exactly how
things came to be." All this surety, but never mind that
such legends are completely unsupported with testable
evidence, lacking any more than general symbolic
references to actual physical things, and are generally
inapplicable to any sensible model of the physical world.
Example Note: Such stories are not however
worthless. They can offer great insight into the
perspectives of those who authored them, and the
symbolic traditions of the societies where they
developed.
speaker misrepresents a situation by framing it as a
limitation of choices between options that are not
representative of the situation's actual options or
accurately descriptive of the implications of choice.
Often these are "one or the other" choices where many
more options exist that are better.
Problem: Although Thomas Jefferson said, “Dissent is
the greatest form of patriotism,” many in-office politicians
try to suppress dissent against their own opinions by
saying things like, “You’re either with us or against us”
and extending the implication of “us” to the nation. Such
phrases squelch open discussion that is the process of
reasoning in society. An exacerbation of this is when
people present false choices that go beyond gross
misinterpretation of situations and force people to make
choices based on metaphysical threats for which there is
no evidence but are instead based on one or another
mythical conjecture. This framing of choice takes
decision-making out of the realm of being reasonably
linked to their actual situations. Instead it makes people
act based on an imaginary framework where they
discount the effects of their actions in the real world.
Examples: “You’re either going to heaven or hell”
“You can take a risk, or you can kill them and let God
sort them out”
“Give up your civil rights to the government or lose your
freedom and way of life”
“Live in prosperity by polluting or protect the
environment.”
Winning - VI
Description: Many people consider that “winning” an
argument means vindicating one’s presumptions held at
the start of the argument.
Problem: When one has this type of “winning” as the
goal, the entire argument becomes rationalization, and
working to this type of end means laying down the goals
of reasoning right at the beginning. Reasoning instead
is the process of interacting with others so that everyone
can come to a better informed and more sound
perspective with which to make judgment. Imperative
here is that one is willing to hold one’s original position
under critical scrutiny and as tentative. When this is
achieved, better thinking is one. “Winning” for one’s
original point involves resorting to deceptive rhetorical
tricks often used in propaganda that persuade a larger
groups of people to agree rather than to first question
and then work understand better.
Example: “The death tax is unjust and cruel because it
takes away money from inheritors in a time of hardship."
Note on Example: The person speaking is not trying to
consider inheritance tax critically in its clearest
representation, but instead looks to make an
unwarranted emotional plea for justice. Inheritance tax
protects democracy by preventing an inordinate
accumulation of wealth/power that can circumvent the
democratic process, suppress positive meritocratic
dynamics, and promote aristocratic social elitism.
People subject to the inheritance tax still receive vast
sums of wealth that they have not earned and are
subject to far less hardship at that time than the average
citizen. There is no tax for dying. The inheritance tax is
a tax for receiving huge sums of money one has not
earned.
Ideas As External Objects - MR
Description: Many ideas are abstractions of things,
like: names for categories of things we make,
abstractions, personifications, or expectations. Trying to
define these things precisely as if they were external-to-
the-mind tangible things that could be objectively tested
is overlooking the fact that their definitions are reliant
on, and in practice merely is, our relative perspective
and usage of the words.
Problem: Treating ideas as external objects creates a
tacit demand that they be treated as real and external
to the mind. This type of fallacious argument is missing
the point that abstractions are defined by us out of
social convention, our own abstraction, or traditional
symbolism. Such arguments limit our ability to really
research the basis for these ideas by making the
demand that we accept the idea as something externally
real and look for them in the imaginary worlds that our
imagination can create around them rather than asking
how we formulated or inherited the idea in the first place.
Example: Arguments that start like "What is the
essence of Art?", or "What is the nature of the soul?"
Priorities As Absolutes - VI
Description: Often arguments will be structured to
distill things down to a set of ideas that are presented as
self-evident, "in and of itself", "It just has to be
accepted," or the like. This type of arguments often go
on to demand agreement as a type of name-calling, as
in "Well if you can't get it... (you're immoral; you're
oblivious; you're clueless.") But this is another form of
unjustified demand.. Demands like this are used to
cover up the inadequacies of the persons own
justifications for their priorities..Mutually agreed priorities
must be established on neutral terms before argument
begins in order to have any argument become valid.
Problem: Presenting "values," "character," "truths," and
"identities" as absolutes closes an analysis of things
that, under just a bit further examination, all have
external sources in our upbringing, choices of affiliation,
and perceptions. They change over time in both
populations and individuals, depending on
circumstances. Treating priorities as absolutes closes
our opportunity to understand these priorities. Failing to
analyze our priorities prevents us from considering the
reasonableness of holding them as based on the
outcomes of holding them. Usually, when people hold
priorities as absolute, their priorities are inadequately
examined in the light of outcomes
Example: When a person says, "I believe in my values
and their's nothing you can say that would make me
change my mind because my values are just the way
things should be." This demonstrates the person's
unwillingness to examine their own ideas and thus the
lack of reasonable basis for asserting their worth.
The Story Problem - VI
Description: When we tell a story, we expect that if we
feel we are truthful, people should take our experiences
to be real. Yet the method of generating significant
knowledge is to be skeptical of things until information
can be confirmed in significant ways. If stories contradict
everyday experience, this skepticism should naturally
increase.
Problem: Many people tell stories of outrageous or
magic-like experiences that they are unwilling to repeat
in a controlled way. This avoidance prevents (even for
themselves) the opportunity to confirm that the way they
remember the experience fits the way it might have
actually happened. Further, such analysis can confirm
or debunk the implications that they might draw from it.
Often, even the storyteller may have just misperceived
something or had a mental experience disconnected
from sensible perception and mistaken it for clear
observation. Perhaps they are linking a cause and
effect inappropriately just because things happened
near the same time. If something did occur, it may also
have occurred through other methods. When a person
gets sick for instance, confirming why one is sick would
take significant investigation instead of believing
because one remembers a threat.
Example: "I experienced the power of Voodoo magic
when a witch doctor made me sick by casting a spell
over a thousand miles away." While the person telling
the story may not have confirmed the true source of the
sickness, if a person takes this story as factual
evidence, they have fallen into the Story Problem.
Unlinked Evidence- MR
Description: Unlinked evidence is usually inherent in
claims that "if I'm right, the world would be as it is
because..." and then state some obvious fact in nature.
In such statements, the world is known and the claim is
just a conjecture that is not demonstrated to be
associated with the evidence except perhaps in
traditional legends that cannot be verified.
Problem: Conjecture is how models are created in
physics to, but it is not how models are tested. Models
that wish to have significant value must predict some
new results or evidence (precisely and tangibly enough
that there is a way of telling if the model is wrong.) They
must have demonstrable links to evidence. In the
example below, the rainbow's existence is known, but it's
relation to the idea of leprechauns, or the existence of
leprechauns at all remains untested. It's like drawing a
card and claiming to be psychic after you've turned it
over and read the face. Knowledge of the card is
unlinked to psychic abilities and does not confirm their
existence or attributes.
Example: "If there weren't any leprechauns, then
rainbows wouldn't exist to show us their pot of gold,
would they?" Easy to say, because tracking down the
end of the rainbow is much like trying to reach the
horizon. But, where's the evidence?
Skipping Ordinary Causes - MR
Description: When some event or circumstance needs
to be explained, people will often look for extraordinary
explanations in order to find the cause as something
beyond tangible confirmation or reasonable analysis.
This happens often even when ordinary causes may be
easily discovered.
Problem: When people attribute everything to their
supernatural pantheon of deities or spiritual energies, it
generally ends the investigation of ordinary evidence
that could increase understanding of an event or
situation. It also includes an implicit demand that the
event or situation is evidence for the existence of any
extraordinary claim, usually without relationship to the
ordinary details of the situation. Looking to
extraordinary explanations creates a need to present
extraordinary evidence and effort in order to confirm this
in the eyes of reasonable people. Ways of avoiding this
fallacy include acknowledging when we know little and
making the effort to investigate related ordinary
evidence before jumping to assumptions.
Example 1: "Zeus created this earthquake. We must
all have done something wrong." The ordinary answer
would be, "Oh, the earth moves occasionally because of
its own characteristics (geologically described.) Perhaps
we'd better study this and learn to predict earthquakes
so we can prepare for the next one." The second is
rather mundane and ordinary, but productive. The first
takes on the additional problem of explaining Zeus,
where he is, what causes him, and how we can confirm
that. That would take some extraordinary explanation
that is more problematic than the earthquake.
Example 2: Explaining Zeus as a fictional character
useful to society is the ordinary cause. Explaining Zeus
as a real super-powerful being that we just don't see
except in dreams, storybooks, and moments of trauma
skips the ordinary cause. One would need to clearly
discount the ordinary cause before addressing possible
extraordinary causes. Further, one would need much
more extensive verification for an extraordinary cause.
Vivid Personal Experiences As Unquestionable - VI
Description: People often have vivid experiences that
they use as the basis for selecting allegiance to groups,
acceptance of ideology, belief in myths and
metaphysical systems, judgment of other people, or
perspective on what happened yesterday.
Problem: There are really two problems. First, our
intense and vivid experiences with strong emotions are
generally the ones where we have the most perceptual
problem and bias of perspective. This is evidenced in
both science and a study of law. Second, when people
have a vivid experience, they strongly link this to
validation of new perspectives about the world they
acquired at the time, or validation of presumptions that
they brought to the situation. Just because a person's
memories of a situation are vivid doesn't mean that the
confirmation of these other assumptions about the world
are accurate. Both of these problems lead to adamant
eye witnesses in the court room that are fervently
sincere, or thrilled scientists who make earthshaking
discoveries about a new cure, both of which turn out to
be completly wrong. If we treated our own experiences
in the "vivid means real" way, we fall into the same trap.
We become sure of things and completely bypass any
feeling of need to confirm those things we take as
absolute.
Example: Often when courts proceed with methodical
investigation and due diligence, DNA and other physical
evidence demonstrates conclusively that many eye
witnesses are wrong. Scientists looking to make a
breakthrough often self-delude into finding what they
look for in the intensity of their effort, even when it is not
their. Only diligent methodical treatment and the
skeptical review of well-informed people disinterested in
the outcome can resolve what was real and what was not
in a way that overcomes this problem.
Ignorance and Surety Proves Conjecture - MR
Definition: One of the most absurd and most often
used fallacies of argument is that if one (or in particular
a person of different point of view) doesn't know for
instance "why a phenomena occurs", then any legend or
arbitrary and unsupported assumption that claims to
know why must be taken as "right," and that accepting
this is far better to simply saying, "We don't really know."
Problem: Galileo worked hard to overcome this fallacy
of Aristotle's science. He realized that when people cling
to untested answers that they inherit, or make up
answers, (like assuming that heavier objects fall faster)
they are closing the door to acknowledging our
ignorance. Without this first step of acknowledging
ignorance we are unable to see the path of exploration
that could help give us new understanding. Without
clearly and honestly addressing our own limits of
knowledge, it is hard to expand it. Any source claiming
to help extend human knowledge of the universe
credibly beyond the reach of science, must adhere to
the same rigor of openness and testability that science
does. Without doing this, it is just unconfirmed
conjecture. When sources of information can be open
to confirmation and rigorous testing, it is a contribution
to the development of science and human
understanding.
Example: "Science cannot explain the very first moment
of the big bang, but [insert your own cultural legend of
origins here] explains in no uncertain terms exactly how
things came to be." All this surety, but never mind that
such legends are completely unsupported with testable
evidence, lacking any more than general symbolic
references to actual physical things, and are generally
inapplicable to any sensible model of the physical world.
Example Note: Such stories are not however
worthless. They can offer great insight into the
perspectives of those who authored them, and the
symbolic traditions of the societies where they
developed.
Currently all entries are © Erik Moore
To submit resources to our editors, please use the contact
MOR button above or click here.
MOR button above or click here.
Page and Icons © Mission of Reason™ all rights reserved. Mission of
Reason™ is a non-profit corporation of the state of Colorado, U.S.A.
Text and images falls under the copyright of the author when indicated.
Reason™ is a non-profit corporation of the state of Colorado, U.S.A.
Text and images falls under the copyright of the author when indicated.
 |  |  |  |
MOR - Resources for Reasoning
