The list of logical errors


During the dispute, while trying to get an answer or explanation, you may encounter with a person who uses logical tricks. You can try to ask the opponent to provide evidence and independent confirmation of his words. If this fails, try to get in the position of your opponent. Perhaps, then, you will find a logical error, is present in his arguments and preventing further conflict resolution. The following briefly describes several common logical tricks.

Ad hominem (Latin. "Against the person"): the source, which uses ad hominem, instead of discussing the thesis goes to the identity of the person who advanced the argument. Whenever the source could not confirm evidence of his claim, the facts or the reason he has resorted to a psychological attack on the enemy: Go to the personality, he explains the point of view of his opponent's personal circumstances or an indication that the opponent is acting contrary to its argument.

Argumentum ad baculum (lat. "Argument to cudgel"): the argument based on the use of fear or threat. For example, "If you do not believe in God, you will burn in Hell."

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (lat. "Argument to ignorance"): an appeal to ignorance (ignorance) as a sign of loyalty approval. For example, "We have no evidence that God does not exist, so it should be." Or: "As there is no evidence of aliens visit, then they do not exist." The statement can not be true because the contrary is proved, and vice versa.

Argumentum ad populum (lat. "Argument to the people") concluded that the idea is credible because she believes a lot of people. For example, "Most people believe in God, and therefore it exists." Just because a lot of people believe in something that does not bring a single fact about the object of belief. For example, many people in Europe during the great plague believed that demons are spreading the disease. However, the number of believers does not say anything about the causes of disease.

Non sequitur (lat. "Fallacy"): a conclusion that does not follow from the allegations. For example, "during a full moon birth rate increases. Conclusion: The full moon increases the birth rate. " But does really a full moon on the number of children born or is it for some other reason? This trick is often used by marketers as a so-called impulse buying when the buyer makes a spontaneous purchase is not related to its original purpose of shopping.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (lat. "Therefore"): a logical error in reasoning: "Since this event is followed after this, then it was due to them." Or a little easier - at first was A, then B. Hence A caused B. The error occurs when the come to the conclusion, based only on the order in which the events took place without taking into account other possible factors. It looks like a non sequitur, but it depends on the time. For example, "She got sick after a visit to China, it means something in China provoked her illness." Perhaps the reason for her illness has nothing to do with China.

The argument to omniscience: For example, "Everyone in something believes. Everyone knows it. " Opponents would require omniscience to know about the beliefs or neverovaniyah each person, as well as their awareness of this. Beware of words such as "all", "every", "unconditional."

Imaginary opponent: a distorted view of the position of the opponent. It involves the creation of the illusion of refuting the refutation of the thesis by a seemingly similar offers. For example, "Evolutionists believe that everything occurs by chance." Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection, which involves an element of chance, but not based solely on it. The image of his opponent in bleak colors only distorts the course of the debate.

The proof of non-existence: when the opponent can not provide proof of his statement, it can cause the opponent to prove that it does not exist. For example, "God does not exist", "UFOs are not visiting the Earth" and so on. D. Although it is possible to prove the absence of something within a certain range, for example, some specific items in a box, you can not prove something on a universal scale . Evidence for the existence should come from the person who makes the statement.

The law of the excluded middle (or a false dilemma): the judgment is true or its negation is true. "There is no third". Many people using Aristotelian either / or logic in his speech, the opposition use the up / down, black / white, true / false, love / hate, etc. For example, "You either like it or not." "He's either guilty or not guilty." Often between the extremes, there is still something what such people do not notice.

Selectivity surveillance (similar to the effect of confirmation): an indication of the favorable circumstances, ignoring unfavorable. Anyone who has ever visited a casino in Las Vegas, winning people to notice. Managers casinos attract attention to the winners, while losers of not even mentioned. This can lead to incorrect inference about the high probability of winning.

Fallacy of the pile: confusion occurs when it is demonstrated that the two states can not be considered different, because between them there are many intermediate states. For example, "Do as you like grains of rice in a bag full of rice?"

Appeal to authority (Lat. Argumentum ad verecundiam - «argument modesty '): A link to the authoritative opinion of the person in order to establish the correctness of the argument instead of using logic and facts supporting argument. For example, "a professor believes in creationism." Just because an "expert" makes a statement, does not mean that he should unconditionally believe.

Appeal to faith: For example, "If you do not have faith, you can not learn." If the other party relies on faith as grounds for his argument, further discussion would be unproductive. Faith, by definition, goes the belief that there is no need for logic or evidence. Faith relies on the lack of logic and thinking is the cause of intransigence.

Appeal to the consequences (lat. Argumentum ad consequentiam - «argument to the consequences") argument fidelity or infidelity approval (beliefs) on the basis of what it is: a welcome or unwelcome consequences. For example, "Some religious people believe that belief in evolution leads to immorality, so evolution - a lie." Even if the theory of evolution led to promiscuity, it would not mean his infidelity.

Appeal to the adverse effects: for example, "We have to judge the accused as the perpetrators, otherwise the others commit similar crimes." Just because a crime has been committed or contradictory offense does not necessarily mean that the defender has committed a crime or that he should be found guilty. Or: "Accidents happen because God punishes unbelievers, so we should all believe in God." Just because there was a terrible disaster or tragedy, says nothing about the existence of gods or about what we should believe.

Appeal to tradition (like the argumentum ad populum): for example, astrology, religion, slavery. Just because people adhere to a certain tradition does not say anything about its viability. Or in other words, just because it always has been, says nothing about what it should be, or that it is the only sure way.

Reification: the materialization of abstract concepts and ideas. For example, IQ test as a measure of intelligence; race (even if there are genetic characteristics) as having a special character traits and personality; astrology; God (s); Father Christmas, etc.

Distract: answer the question with a deliberate attempt to take the survey in another direction by changing the topic of discussion.

Error use-mention: the lack of distinction between the use of concepts and mentioning that supposedly exist. For example, an essay on "The History of God" does not refer to real-life god, but to the history of ideas about God in human culture. To avoid misunderstandings, the words or phrases written in quotation marks.

Error, repeated twice, to judge by their own misconduct charge someone to the crime of the same. For example, "How can you judge me, if you did the same?" Wines prosecutor has no connection with the conversation.

Fallacy of composition: when the output of loyalty / disloyalty argument is based on the fidelity / infidelity part (s) or vice versa. For example, "Atoms can not be seen with the naked eye. People are made up of atoms. Consequently, people are invisible to the naked eye. "

Half-truths: the claim is usually aimed at misleading by omitting some of the details needed to accurately describe the full picture.

A vicious circle: loyalty to the assertion follows from the statement itself. For example, "The existence of God certainly, as it is clearly stated in the Qur'an. Any statements in the Qur'an is absolutely true, because the Qur'an was revealed by Allah to mankind. "

Biased coverage of the issue: Form a false argument, the opposition in the dispute results in only favorable arguments and / or eliminates uncomfortable. In fact, it is an attempt to refer to something as an exception to the generally accepted rules, guidelines and so on. Without explaining the need for this exception. For example, "Many black people call each other blacks, and therefore no shame to call them as the rest."

The provocative question: when someone asks a question, containing the statement of something unproven or are not accepted by all affected parties. The answer to this question implies consent. For example: "Do you still beat your wife?". A negative or positive response to the respondent would mean consent to the fact that he has a wife of whom he had beaten in the past.

Confusing correlation and causality: the conclusion of causation as a deterministic, ie if A causes B, then B is always followed by A. For example, "The number of men playing chess than women, therefore, the best male players than women." Or: "Children who watch the atrocities on TV, often more aggressive when they grow up than those who do not look." But does television on cruelty or ill-oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps a completely different reason for creating violence, committed not related to television.

Slippery track: a relatively small step will lead to irreversible chain of related events leading to any significant change, like a snowball. For example, "If you allow doctors to assist in suicide, then, in the end, the government will control how we die." Change is not always focused on the slippery slope.

Statistics of small numbers (similar to the selective observation) by achieving an erroneous generalization inductive reasoning (ie, from the particular to the general) built on insufficient evidence for this. This often includes a general conclusion on the basis of statistical survey of small groups that do not reflect the situation as a whole. For example, "My parents smoked all their lives and have never had any problems with cancer." In contrast to the hasty generalization of the lazy there is induction, ie, denial of inference. For example, "12 Hugo suffered an accident in the past six months, but he continues to insist that it was not his fault, just a coincidence."

Effect of acknowledgment (like selective monitoring): a kind of selective thinking, in which a person focuses only on the evidence and the facts supporting that, in what he has believed, while at the same time ignoring evidence refuting his beliefs. Effect of confirmation plays an important role when people form their views on faith, tradition or prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, that a believer will be to pay attention to a number of "answered" prayers, the majority are not answered simply ignore (which indicates that the fulfillment of the prayer, as a minimum, no more than a coincidence, but as a maximum, is similar to the placebo effect on the health of the patient).