# Logical fallacies... **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 4, 2001, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/48341 "2001-01-04T03:21:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SSgtBaloo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@SSgtBaloo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SSgtBaloo)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/48341/1 "2001-01-04T03:21:20Z")
In another thread, someone brought up some types of logical fallacies, including _tu quoque_, _ad hominem_, and _reductio ad absurdum_. I know what an ad hominem attack\* is, but what are the others? I’m certain there are others, so what are they? Thanks! ~~Baloo - Attempting to discrediting the person you disagree with rather than addressing the point they have raised. If I’m wrong, please set me straight. ---
**Author:** ![nineiron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e56c9b/32.png) [@nineiron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nineiron)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/48341/2 "2001-01-04T03:33:54Z")
Don’t have any text in front of me, but one I can recall is “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” From what I recall, this essentially is “after this, therefore because of this.” The fallacy is this: if B happened after A, A must have caused B. I walk into the room and you get a headache; therefore, I cause headaches. ---
**Author:** ![chique](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@chique](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chique)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/48341/3 "2001-01-04T03:35:33Z")
Someone posted this the other day: [http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm](http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Skwerl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Skwerl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skwerl)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/48341/4 "2001-01-04T03:59:40Z")
Seatbelts fastened? Then away we go! argumentum ad verecundiam: appeal to authority: an authority is cited, although the authority is in fact not an authority in the issue at hand; ie, saying that your biology teacher thinks Shakespeare’s a crackpot, so he must have been argumentum ad populum: appeal to the people: variation on above, using the people as an authority; argues that something must be true because most people believe it is, like “50,000 smokers can’t be wrong!” argumentum ad baculum: appeal to force: basically a threat; warning someone of bad consequences by refusing to accept your argument, as in “if this man is let off the hook, he will kill again!” argumentum ad misericordiam: appeal to pity: arousing sympathy to gain support, such as saying that someone committed a crime because he is poor and supports 15 kids, all of which are in rehab, and therefore is innocent argumentum ad ignoratiam: appeal to ignorance saying that since we can’t prove something is true/false, it must be false/true; like when people say “there’s no proof of God, ergo there is no God” ad hominem: against the person: attack on the person, not their position in an argument; saying that you shouldn’t vote for someone because he’s an atheist or divorced his 4th wife —ad hominem circumstantial argument: suggesting but not explicitly stating poor moral character, offering motives behind actions; saying that your dentist wants to do a root canal because it is expensive —ad hominem tu quoque: you too!: reversing the argument back onto the arguer; saying “yeah, I stole $40 from you, but you stole $60 from me a month ago!” false cause: saying that one thing causes another, even though there is no real evidence of it; like saying that since most crack users started on marijuana, marijuana must lead to crack use —slippery slope: variation of false cause, saying one thing leads to another leads to another until chaos; like gun control opponents saying that one ban leads to another leads to loss of all guns either/or: presenting argument as though there are only two options; someone saying “I don’t like Bush or Gore, but Bush is better than Gore”, when in fact he should’ve voted for Harry Browne _ahem_ equivocation: equating one word’s connotation or contextual meaning to another’s; such as saying “Logic is about arguments, so I should be good at it, since I argue alot with my parents”, because the two arguments are used in a different since hasty generalization: generalization based on unrepresentative sample; saying that since 80% of the junkies you surveyed think that marijuana should be legal, 80% the country does too fallacy of composition/division: saying that the whole must have a trait because each member does; “Every singer is good, so the choir must be good” saying that the parts must have traits of the whole; “It is cold often in Minnesota. Because Minneapolis is in Minnesota, it is often cold there.” false analogy: assuming since two things are like in one aspect, they are like in others; “Jack, a cornerback on our football team, is a jerk, so Jerry, cornerback on your football team, must be also” begging the question: assuming the point under question is true; “The Bible says God exists, and since the Bible is God’s word, God exists.” straw man: misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to defeat; saying that the correlation between smoking and lung cancer can’t be true, because logically it does not follow; however, the correlation did not assert that lung cancer is a direct result of smoking red herring: draw attention away from issue to some easier, but seemingly related issue; many think that quotas are a red herring of affirmative action Okay, how’s that for starters? ---
**Author:** ![Manduck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manduck/32/256_2.png) [@Manduck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manduck)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/48341/5 "2001-01-04T06:20:39Z")
I guess somebody should point out that _reductio ad absurdum_ is not a fallacy. It’s a method of proving a proposition by showing that the assumption that the proposition is false leads to a contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2001, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-fallacies/48341/6 "2001-01-04T06:31:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chique \* > \*\*Someone posted this the other day: > > [http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm](http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm) \*\* This is the coolest thing I’ve seen in at least 2.3 weeks! Thanks, **chique**!!