Fallacy Fallacy Merch

Description: The Scapegoating fallacy occurs when someone unfairly blames a problem on an already unpopular person or group.

Description: The Fallacy Fallacy occurs when you assume a claim is false because a logical fallacy was used during arguments supporting the claim.

Description: Invincible Ignorance describes a situation where, no matter how much evidence is presented or how clearly they are wrong, a fallacious arguer simply refuses to waver from their original position.

Description: The Exact Definition Fallacy occurs when someone disingenuously demands their opponent provide a definition solely to score debate points when they can't provide one that meets an arbitrary standard

Description: The Argument to Moderation Fallacy is committed when someone assumes that true or most reasonable answer is a compromise between two given answers (when in fact one of the given answers may be right)

Description: The Fault as Virtue Fallacy occurs when someone disingenuously reframes a flaw in themselves or a situation as a good thing to support their argument.

Description: The Fallacy of Worse Evil is committed when someone acts like something is not a problem because worse problems exist or can be imagined.

Description: The Honor by Association Fallacy occurs when someone tries to make themselves look better because of a connection to a positive person or concept.

Description: The Appeal to Freedom Fallacy is committed when someone claims that they should be entitled to something because any restraint of personal freedom for any reason is unacceptable.

Description: The Appeal to Accomplishment Fallacy is committed when someone refers to their abilities or achievements as a reason to believe them rather than using arguments.

Description: The Appeal to Fiction Fallacy is committed when someone tries to use something that happened in a work of fiction to back up their claim about the real world.

Description: The Base Rate Fallacy is committed when someone offers a statistic as evidence without considering (or including) the prior probability of one or more of the factors involved.

Description: The Hot Hand Fallacy is committed when someone confuses dependent and independent events and claims that because particular outcome has been happening recently, it will continue to happen.

Description: The Complex Question Fallacy is committed when someone asks a question which includes the answer they are expecting or only allows people to answer in one way.

Description: The Insignificant Cause Fallacy occurs when someone claims an outcome is due to something which may be a minor factor, but is certainly not the main cause.

Description: The Just World Fallacy is committed when someone assumes that if something bad happens to you, it's probably because you're a bad person.

Description: The Incomplete Comparison fallacy is committed when someone suggests a thing is better or worse, without specifying what it is better or worse than.

Description: The Conflating Views Fallacy is committed when someone conflates the opinions or actions of multiple people within a group and suggests if those views conflict that the group is hypocritical.

Description: The Appeal to Definition Fallacy occurs when someone relies on a specific definition, from a dictionary or other authority, which supports their argument, and ignores the possibility that other definitions are also reasonable.

Description: The Ad Hoc Fallacy is committed when someone makes stuff up in order to avoid accepting evidence against their belief.

Description: The Double Standard Fallacy is committed when someone treats two very similar situations differently (usually to their advantage) with no explanation why.

Description: The Golden Hammer Fallacy occurs when someone assumes it is sensible to rely on a single tool or method to solve every problem.

Description: The Zero Sum fallacy occurs when someone assumes gains and losses in a specific situation are directly balanced when in fact they are not.

Description: The Tautological Templar Fallacy involves a person claiming their actions are good or right because they are a good person who only does good things.

Description: The Broken Clock Fallacy occurs when someone suggests that because they were right once (even if it was for the wrong reason) they should be trusted generally.

Description: The Think of the Children Fallacy occurs when someone invokes an appeal to emotion involving theoretical harm to children to avoid addressing an actual argument.

Description: The Square One Fallacy occurs when someone dismisses all the work and research that has been done and pretends we need to start from the beginning to solve or understand a problem.

Description: The Just Because Fallacy occurs when someone refuses to give a reason or evidence for their assertion, instead expecting others to trust their authority just because.

Description: The Sunk Cost Fallacy is committed when someone justifies maintaining or extending a course of action based on the cost already incurred (whether in terms of money, time, effort or intellectual capital).

Description: The Broken Window Fallacy is committed when someone tries to claim when a bad thing happens, that good things will result from it, which makes it OK.

Description: The Pooh Pooh Fallacy is committed when someone dismisses a claim, argument or question as not being worthy of discussion, especially as a technique to avoid having a difficult conversation.

Description: A straw man fallacy is the logical error of distorting a claim or argument to make it easier to refute. Help to spread the word about this logical fallacy

Description: The Argument from Personal Incredulity describes a situation where someone dismisses a claim for no other reason than they find it difficult to believe. In fact, the person may be having trouble believing something simply because it doesn’t conform to how they currently think, or even that they simply don’t understand some element of the claim. However, rather than asking for more information or an explanation, the claim is dismissed as false because it seems unlikely to them.

Description: Sunk cost fallacy. The “sunk cost fallacy” is where sunk costs made in the past influence future investment. Whilst it may make sense to discontinue investment and “cut ones losses” often the fact of the past costs are used to justify continuing. This could be true of for example economic investments or relationships. Throwing good money after bad.

Description: Typically, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. The more outrageous the claim, the more the claimant should be expected to provide evidence before anyone is likely to believe him. When the claimant instead challenges others to prove his claim is not true he is Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Description: The Halo Effect is a cognitive bias that leads people to base their whole opinion of someone on a single positive or negative trait.