Logical Fallacy Magnets

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

Description: The Holmesian Fallacy occurs when someone assumes they have eliminated all incorrect answers and arrive at their conclusion because it is the only remaining answer they can think of.

Description: The Appeal to Probability Fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because something is possible or probable then it will definitely happen.

Description: When supporting your claims by comparing two things, it's important to be consistent in terms of what you're actually comparing. If you are not fair when setting up the parameters, and you end up comparing the two in different ways, you are engaging in the fallacy of Inconsistent Comparison.

Description: The I'm Entitled to my Opinion Fallacy occurs when someone invokes this supposed right in the face of opposing evidence which they can't argue against. Subscribe to the podcast at http://fallacioustrump.com

Description: Inspired by the single cause fallacy

Description: The Furtive Fallacy occurs when someone assumes that significant events are due to hidden actions by nefarious powerful people.

Description: The Politician's Fallacy is committed when someone recognises that 'something' must be done about a problem and assumes that any 'something' will do.

Description: The Sanctimony Fallacy occurs when someone claims to be morally superior to their opponent, either without evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence.

Description: The Anecdotal Fallacy is committed when someone allows an anecdote to lend far more weight to an argument than it warrants.

Description: The Labelling Fallacy occurs when someone assigns a (usually negative) label to a person or idea as a shortcut to avoid providing evidence of how the person or idea is wrong.

Description: The Accident Fallacy is committed when someone applies a general rule to a specific situation which is actually an exception to the rule.

Description: The Gambler's Fallacy is committed when someone confuses dependent and independent events or claims that a particular outcome is 'due' because it hasn't happened for some time.

Description: The Planning Fallacy describes the tendency for people to underestimate the time a task will take to complete.

Description: The Historical Fallacy is committed when someone assumes the current situation was always inevitable and ignores or denies the context of what led up to it.

Description: The Toupée Fallacy is a type of Argument from Ignorance where someone doesn't notice evidence that would prove that they don't notice confounding evidence, such as when someone claims that all toupées are bad because they've never seen a convincing one (possibly because if it was convincing, they wouldn't know it was a toupée).

Description: The Prosecutor's Fallacy is committed when someone mixes up the conditionals when stating a probability or doesn't factor the conditionals in at all.

Description: The Imposter Fallacy is committed when someone claims without sufficient evidence that a member of their group who is making them look bad is actually an infiltrator from another group.

Description: The Accent Fallacy is committed when the meaning of a sentence or phrase is changed by placing the emphasis on a different part, or leaving emphasis ambiguous in writing.

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

Description: The Ambiguity Fallacy is committed when someone is deliberately vague or ambiguous to make their point or avoid answering a question.

Description: The McNamara Fallacy is committed when someone treats something as important because it is easy to measure, or dismisses something as unimportant because it is hard to measure.

Description: The Ethnocentric Fallacy occurs when someone starts from an assumption that their own culture is superior to others or was more instrumental in history than it really was.

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 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 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: 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 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.