Published on
June 25, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 28, 2025
The appeal to tradition fallacy involves arguing that something is right solely because it has been accepted or practiced for a long time.
Tradition is treated as sufficient proof of an idea or behavior’s merit without evidence or analytical reasoning.
Appeal to tradition fallacy example“People have been using St. John’s Wort as a remedy for depression for generations, proving that it has legitimate therapeutic effects.”
Regardless of whether St. John’s Wort has therapeutic value in treating depression, this argument commits the appeal to tradition fallacy because it expresses certainty without any discussion of objective evidence. The error lies in treating tradition alone as adequate proof of the treatment’s efficacy.
The appeal to tradition fallacy often occurs in debates about cultural practices, religious beliefs, legal and political decisions, and medical treatments.
The appeal to ignorance fallacy occurs when a claim is considered true or false based solely on the absence of definitive proof of the contrary.
This logical fallacy is an attempt to sidestep the burden of proof by suggesting that the absence of preexisting counter-evidence is sufficient to prove the speaker’s claim.
Appeal to ignorance exampleA celebrity defendant is acquitted of a crime, but the public disagrees with the verdict. A commentator defends the celebrity: “The prosecution couldn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so it’s been definitively proven that this person is innocent. Anyone who still questions the verdict is being unreasonable.”
This reasoning is an example of the appeal to ignorance fallacy because it wrongly suggests that the prosecution’s failure to definitively prove guilt implies the defendant’s innocence. In reality, the absence of irrefutable evidence can result in an acquittal, but it does not prove with certainty that the accused did not commit the crime.
Appeals to ignorance can be found in a variety of contexts, including law, marketing, and politics. This faulty line of reasoning can also be seen in discussions of paranormal activity and conspiracy theories.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 28, 2025
The hasty generalization fallacy involves forming far-reaching conclusions without sufficient evidence.
Such conclusions often lead to misleading or inaccurate representations of reality, as they are based on an incomplete understanding of the data.
Hasty generalization fallacy example“In several cases, individuals released early from prison due to reform policies committed crimes shortly after their release. This proves that early release policies are dangerous and increase crime rates.”
This argument commits the hasty generalization fallacy by extrapolating the outcomes of a few cases to critique all early release policies and neglecting to analyze broader statistics that might show overall positive impacts or different outcomes.
Hasty generalizationsare often called overgeneralization fallacies or faulty generalization fallacies.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
December 9, 2024
The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when an argument relies solely on soliciting sympathy in a situation that requires rational analysis. Instead of focusing on evidence and reasoning, an argument that commits this fallacy tries to sway opinions by eliciting pity or guilt.
Appeal to pity fallacy exampleDuring conflicts, it’s common for state propaganda to portray a country as a defenseless victim of unprovoked attacks to garner backing for military endeavors or validate government actions. This approach bypasses a balanced discussion on the motivations and strategies of all the involved parties, as well as the broader implications of various courses of action.
The fallacy is also known by the more formal name argumentum ad misericordiam, meaning “argument from compassion” in Latin. Fallacious appeals to pity are easy to find in many contexts, such as advertising, politics, law, and fundraising.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 7, 2024
The cherry picking fallacy occurs when an argument highlights evidence that supports its conclusion while ignoring significant evidence to the contrary.
Presenting facts in this selective manner can distort the overall picture and yield misleading conclusions.
Cherry picking fallacy exampleA climate change skeptic cites several cold weather events as evidence against global warming, while disregarding the overwhelming scientific consensus and data indicating long-term temperature trends.
The cherry picking fallacy is particularly problematic in fields that require objective analysis, such as media reporting, scientific research, policymaking, and legal proceedings.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
August 13, 2024
The appeal to nature fallacy occurs when an argument assumes that whatever is deemed natural is inherently superior to whatever is considered unnatural. The claim that an idea or practice is natural is used as a replacement for a logical, evidence-based argument.
Arguments that commit this fallacy typically claim that something is safe, healthy, practical, or morally good solely because it is natural.
Appeal to nature fallacy example in health“Herbal supplements are derived from plants, so they’re safer than prescription drugs.”
This claim exemplifies the appeal to nature fallacy because it relies entirely on the fact that herbal supplements are “natural” to argue their safety. The argument fails to consider the importance of scientific evidence. In reality, some herbal supplements can have detrimental effects, and in many countries they aren’t required to be tested for safety like pharmaceuticals are.
The appeal to nature fallacy can be found in debates about food, lifestyle, health, and environmental policy among other subjects.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 7, 2024
The fallacy of division is the error of assuming that what’s true of a whole must also be true of any given part.
This logical fallacy can occur in arguments that appear logical but don’t hold up to close scrutiny.
Fallacy of division example“Given Google’s track record of groundbreaking technology, it’s safe to assume that any new product from Google is destined to become a fundamental part of our daily lives.”
This reasoning exemplifies the fallacy of division because it assumes that the success of Google’s product offerings on the whole means that each of its individual products will be successful. In reality, Google has created products that have failed and been discontinued, such as the social network G+ and the augmented reality headset Google Glass.
The fallacy of division can be found in discussions across many domains, such as business, science, and history.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
January 28, 2025
The naturalistic fallacy is the mistake of assuming that whatever is deemed natural is also morally good. An argument that commits this logical fallacy argues that the way things are is the way things should be without providing a logical rationale.
Naturalistic fallacies always involve claims about ethics or morality.
Naturalistic fallacy example“Humans have always engaged in competing for resources, and taking a selfish approach helps ensure survival. Therefore, it is morally good to be selfish.
”The statement exemplifies the naturalistic fallacy by using natural human competitiveness as a moral justification for selfishness. The argument is weak because it doesn’t provide any logical rationale for equating natural behavior with morally good behavior.
The naturalistic fallacy is often found in discussions of what is morally “good,” in domains such as policymaking, philosophy, and religion.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 11, 2024
The burden of proof fallacy involves failing to support one’s own assertion and challenging others to disprove it.
Although the person making a claim is responsible for providing evidence for that claim, people often commit the burden of proof fallacy by passing that responsibility on to the opposition.
Burden of proof fallacy example“It’s obvious that we live in a simulation. Prove me wrong.”
This statement is an example of the burden of proof fallacy because it asserts a conclusion without offering evidence, instead placing the onus on skeptics to disprove the claim.
The burden of proof fallacy is often associated with law, but it can be found in many other contexts as well, including politics, media, and online debates.
Published on
June 24, 2024
by
Magedah Shabo
Revised on
November 21, 2024
The conjunction fallacy is the mistaken assumption that multiple events or conditions are more likely to occur together than they are to occur separately.
Conjunction fallacy exampleA doctor diagnoses a patient with the flu, but the patient disagrees: “I know you think that I have the flu, but according to WebMD, the same set of symptoms could also indicate pneumonia. I most likely have both the flu and pneumonia.”
This reasoning demonstrates the conjunction fallacy because it incorrectly assumes that the likelihood of having both the flu and pneumonia is greater than the likelihood of having the flu alone. In reality, given that the patient has symptoms that are associated with both illnesses, it’s statistically more likely that a patient has the common flu, but not also pneumonia.
This error in reasoning can affect decision-making processes in contexts such as financial planning, medical diagnostics, and legal reasoning, among others.
