Reasoning can be incorrect, irrelevant, or ambiguous {fallacy}.
People can change word emphasis, inflection, or context {accent, fallacy}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Two grammatical word or phrase forms can be in different word groups, link to different pronouns, or be different speech parts {amphiboly}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Extension to whole from part, or to class from individual, can have no logical basis {composition fallacy}|, an ambiguity fallacy.
Extension to part from whole can have no basis {decomposition}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Idea about class can apply to individual, or idea about whole can apply to part {division fallacy}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Assuming only mentioned alternatives, if other alternatives exist, is incompleteness {either-or fallacy}|, an ambiguity fallacy.
Words can have two meanings or have different contexts {equivocation}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Assuming only two conclusions or premises, if many exist, is incompleteness {false dichotomy}| {either/or fallacy}, an ambiguity fallacy.
Thingness can differentiate thing from other things {haec ergo quid fallacy}. However, two things can share more similarities than differences. Thing natures can be general categories.
Conditions have probabilities, such as 1% for diseases. Tests have reliability, such as 90%, and corresponding false-positive rates, such as 10%. If test is positive, most people think that chance of having condition is reliability, such as 90%, not probability divided by reliability, such as 0.9% {ignoring the base rate}.
Wholes can be only one aspect {misplaced concreteness fallacy}|, an ambiguity fallacy. Part relations can be more important than part types.
Words often have ambiguous scope or change scope after sentence rearranging or inference making {scope fallacy, logic}, an ambiguity fallacy. Statement, subject, or predicate negation changes scope. Reference change changes scope.
Arguments can use imprecise language {vagueness}, an ambiguity fallacy.
If A then B is true, and B is true, then A is true {affirming the consequent}|, a deduction fallacy.
Arguments can assume conclusion in question without proof {begging the question}| {petitio principii}. It is a deduction fallacy and is the same as circularity. However, allowing conclusion with which no one argues is not fallacy. Proposing conclusions for argument's sake is not fallacious.
Conclusion can prove premise {circular argument} {circular reasoning}| {circularity}. It is a deduction fallacy and is the same as begging the question.
Granting permission for two things can sound like permitting first or second, like exclusive OR, but is actually conjunction {confectionary fallacy}, a deduction fallacy.
If A then B, and not A, so not B is incorrect logic {denying the antecedent}|, a deduction fallacy. If A then B, and not B, so not A is modus-tollens denying the consequent and is correct reasoning.
People can incorrectly assume that if two things are alike in some ways, they are alike in other ways {false analogy}|, a deduction fallacy.
Syllogism can incorrectly have four terms, typically because one term has two meanings {four-term fallacy}, a deduction fallacy.
A is B; C is B; so A is C is association, not deduction {guilt by association}|, a deduction fallacy.
I know who my father is. I do not know who the masked man is. My father is not the masked man {masked man fallacy}|. However, the masked man can be anybody. Sentence objects are not the same. It is a deduction fallacy.
People can make wrong implications {non sequitur}|, a deduction fallacy.
People can leave out important part {omission fallacy}, a deduction fallacy.
Overgeneralization, jumping to conclusion, stereotyping, either-or fallacy, or trivial analogies simplify argument {oversimplification}|, a deduction fallacy.
Because effect follows something, the something can be said to be cause {post hoc ergo prompter hoc} {post hoc prompter hoc}, a deduction fallacy.
In syllogism, neither premise can have distributed term, which applies to All or No {undistributed middle fallacy}|, a deduction fallacy.
Premise or definition can include the term to define {vicious circle fallacy}|, a deduction fallacy.
Event can be happenstance, rather than relevant {accident, fallacy}, an irrelevance fallacy.
Attacks can be on people instead of arguments, to discredit experts or people with bad reputations {ad hominem argument}| {argumentum ad hominem}, an irrelevance fallacy.
Appeals to follow popular opinion are not about argument {bandwagon effect}| {bandwagon appeal}, an irrelevance fallacy.
Arguers can talk about people who believe statements, rather than reasoning for or against statements {bias charge}|. It is an irrelevance fallacy and is the same as ad hominem.
Attacking personal character is not about the argument {character assassination fallacy}|. It is an irrelevance fallacy and is the same as ad hominem.
Arguments can define terms in favorable or unfavorable ways without discussion {definist fallacy}, an irrelevance fallacy.
People can exaggerate claim or include too much {extension fallacy}, an irrelevance fallacy.
People can pay for, or coerce, testimony {false testimony}, an irrelevance fallacy.
Arguments can be about statement that is not statement to prove but only related statement {ignoratio elenchi}, an irrelevance fallacy.
People can use omission or misinterpretation {ignoring the context}, an irrelevance fallacy.
Leaving out part is not about the argument {ignoring the question}|. It is an irrelevance fallacy and is the same as red herring or name-calling.
Arguments can refer to something other than current premises and conclusions {irrelevance}, an irrelevance fallacy. Appeals to force, person, pity, the people, or authority are irrelevant fallacies. Arguments from ignorance, neglect of circumstances, questions containing implied question, and irrelevant conclusions are irrelevant fallacies.
People can use words that cause emotional reactions {loaded word}, an irrelevance fallacy.
Arguments can use valid inferences from answer to question that was about something non-existent and so not real {many-questions fallacy}, an irrelevance fallacy.
People can apply false label or use emotional words or connotations without evidence {name-calling}. It is an irrelevance fallacy and is the same as red herring or ignoring the question.
People can exaggerate claims or include too much {overgeneralization}| {hasty generalization}, an irrelevance fallacy. For example, Some A is B, C is A, so C is B.
People can use false issue, emotional issue, or digression {red herring}|. It is an irrelevance fallacy and is the same as ignoring the question or name-calling.
Arguments can distort or exaggerate opponent ideas, making them easier to attack {straw-man fallacy}|, an irrelevance fallacy.
Arguments can use association with something that causes emotion {association transfer} {transfer of association}, an irrelevance fallacy.
Outline of Knowledge Database Home Page
Description of Outline of Knowledge Database
Date Modified: 2022.0225