Hasty Generalization _ making a general claim which is derived from an insufficient number of specific examples.

Example:

“Prisoner X was a member of an extremist group. Everyone in that group is obviously dangerous”.

The media is rife with one-sided stories reported by ignorance, bias and neglect. Usually, one commits this fallacy when they’ve made up their mind about a subject before hearing the facts. This is why we emphasize worldview analysis and didactic reasoning over the dialectic, feeling-based approach.

We all have feelings but if we let them govern our thinking and reasoning especially in the fight for truth, we will become a casualty in the worldview wars.

Genetic Fallacy _ the rejection of a claim simply because someone objects to the source of the information.

Example from Dr Jason Lisle’s book Discerning Truth:

If a Creationist cites an article in the Answers Research Journal in support of a particular claim, it would be fallacious for the critic to respond, “Well, that’s a creationist journal. Do you have any support from mainstream journals?”

                                                             p.76 Discerning Truth by Dr. Jason Lisle

Arguments should be evaluated purely on on the validity of the claim itself. The source, while it may be obscure, controversial or even unorthodox shouldn’t discredit the claim.

Truth often comes in uncomfortable packages and sometimes even from the mouths of disreputable persons. Simply put: “don’t judge a book by…well, you get the idea.

Faulty Appeal to Authority _ the endorsement of a position or statement simply based on the social stature of the person making it.

(Opposite of the ad hominem fallacy)

Example:

“My uncle says the earth is flat. He has a PhD in geophysics”.

Not every appeal to authority is faulty. Credible experts in almost every field have proven theories by research and diligent study. However, credentialing by itself doesn’t have bearing on the factual status of a claim.

Some experts are well versed in their area of research, but not in others. For example, it would be unwise to take serious medical advice from someone who never studied it but was highly credentialed in another field.

It’s also wise to take into consideration the worldview of the person stating the claim. What a person thinks is directly connected to how they think. Strong evidence can be pushed aside when it conflicts with one’s worldview.

Usually, with a faulty appeal to authority, the opponent doesn’t have a well informed grasp of the subject at hand and thus you encounter some mention of a “higher” power. Since the “expert” isn’t there to give his evidence and the premise is lofty; the argument becomes moot. This really should be classified as a red herring attempt.

You don’t need alphabet soup behind your name to know the truth. Stay informed and don’t get distracted by a false appeal to authority.

False Analogy _ drawing a comparison between things that are similar in trivial ways, but not at all pertaining to the argument being made.

Example:

“People entering the workforce today are like nails; they can hold your company together only if you hit them on the head first.”

This fallacy often shows up in the form of an outlandish word picture intended to evoke an emotional response. Logically, the wordplay doesn’t make sense especially if a point is being made.

The power of analogy is to simplify a premise by drawing a comparison to an object, person or scenario. The error of false analogy is in twisting the semantics to arrive at a different meaning. Even more dangerous is one in which the argument produces a purely emotional result.

Read more about logical fallacies in Dr. Jason Lisle’s book: “Discerning Truth“. This book is available in our Media Store for only $10. Click here for more information.

Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis _ involves proving a valid point, but not the point at issue.

A type of “red herring” fallacy (Ignoratio elenchi) “ignorance of refutation”.

Example taken from Dr Jason Lisle’s book “Discerning Truth”:

Suppose I was the sole survivor of an airplane crash. When a reporter asks me how it was that I was able to survive, it would be fallacious for me to reply, “Because if I hadn’t survived, I would not be here to answer your question.” Although it is true that I would not be around to answer the question had I died, this really doesn’t answer the question itself-why I was able to survive. All fallacies of irrelevant thesis can be rebutted with this simple phrase: “True perhaps, but irrelevant.”        -Dr. Jason Lisle, Discerning Truth p. 81

Fallacy of False Cause _ claiming the existence of a false cause-and-effect relationship between two separate events. (non causa pro causa)

(subclass 1): “After this, therefore because of this”: post hoc ergo propter hoc

(subclass 2): “With this, therefore because of this”: cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Example:

The “Rooster Syndrome”. Every morning the old rooster crows just before dawn. He believes it’s his crowing that causes the sun to rise.

The form is: “A” occurred, then “B” occurred. Therefore “A” caused “B”.

Here’s another scenario:

You live in the country and you’re out on your property doing a little target practice. Your neighbor comes over and frantically claims you just shot and killed his dog. Upon further investigation, you find no injury to the dog. Apparently he had died of purely natural causes.

Sometimes opponents are so eager to make a point that they don’t stop and use rational thinking to arrive at their conclusion. Others are just engrained in a particular way of thinking that is void of didactic reasoning. Still some will stop their ears, shut their eyes and will not look at the evidence provided them because it conflicts with their worldview. They usually evade questions about their reasons for holding a view or they become indignant and often resort to more fallacious behavior.

For those who choose to reason, the solution is to just slow down and look at all the available evidence. Then you can begin to carefully work through that information to the truth. Remember, reality gets to speak last and when it does, it has the final word.

Fallacy of Division _ the supposition that what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts. A reverse of Fallacy of Composition.

Example:

One of the wealthiest communities in America is Beverly Hills, California. Bob lives there so he must be rich.

The fallacy of division happens when someone makes the argument that what is true of a whole must be true of its constituent parts, without evidence to support the premise. This is often used to marginalize a person’s viewpoint by associating them with a group’s traits.

The fallacy of division could be associated with a hasty generalization or red herring to distract from the point of an argument. In our example, the fictional Bob could be from out of town, homeless or maybe bankrupt.

Watch out for this fallacy and ask for specifics. As always, fallacies tend to run in the dark and away from the facts.