I have found a list of common fallacies here which I though I should reproduce.
(update 10/04/2010: I have now extended the list of fallacies by referring to the book Applied Intelligence of Sternberg et. al. and to the source commenter “Manblogg” [Manos] was kind to post )
Formal Fallacies
- A or B. Therefore, A
- A or B. A. Therefore, not B. (affirming the disjunct)
- Not both A and B are true. Not A. Therefore, B. (denying the conjunct)
- If A then B. B. Therefore, A. (affirming the consequent)
- If A then B. Not A. Therefore, not B. (denying the antecedent)
- If A then B. C. Therefore, B. (non sequitur of evidence)
- If A then B. Not C. Therefore, not A. (non sequitur of evidence)
- If A then B. A. Therefore, C. (non sequitur of relevance)
- If A then B. Not B. Therefore, not C. (non sequitur of relevance)
Fallacies of Relevance
- Ad hominem (personal attack) – note this fallacy is of the form: If A then B. A. Therefore C.
- Bad motive
- Tu quoque
- Two wrongs make a right (If A then B. A. Therefore C.)
- Ad baculum (appeal to force)
- Ad misericordium (appeal to pity)
- Ad populum (bandwagon)
- Straw man
- Red herring
- Equivocation
- Petitio principii (begging the question)
Fallacies of Evidence
- Argumentum ad verecundiam(Inappropriate appeal to authority)
- Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance)
- False dichotomy
- Loaded question
- Questionable cause
- Slippery slope
- Hasty generalization
- Weak analogy
- Inconsistency
(update)
- Appeal to Duty (“Should Statement”)
- Distorted personalization.
- Magnification or Minimization
- Mental Filter
- Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant thesis)
- The fallacy of labelling
- Emotional reasoning
- The fallacy of amphiboly
- The fallacy of Vagueness
- Garden Path
- The fallacy of suppressed evidence
- The Gambler’s Fallacy
- Skill, not Chance
- The Fallacy of Composition
- The Fallacy of Division
- The Fallacy of the undistributed middle (All A are B. All C are B. All A are C.)
- Invalid Disjunction
- Availability
- Argumentum ad nauseam
- Argumentum ad antiquitatem
- Argumentum ad Logicam
- Argumentum ad numerum
- Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
- A dicto simpliciter
- Naturalistic fallacy (formal)
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Having conversations with people who are not able to avoid falling (constantly and unrepentantly) into these fallacy traps is surely a waste of time…
Oh, where were you Epanechnikov when I was ruminating what discipline of learning to follow. In your blog I’m like a kid in a toy store who doesn’t know how the toys work. But tries his best to guess!
Great post. I always maintain a link to a source with those not only for trying to avoid making them myself, but also for pointing them out or leaving a debate to not waste my time as you most appropriately remark at the end of your post.
The most typical fallacy that I have come across when debating with friends is the various types of Ad Hominem, where somebody attacks motives or the personality of the debater instead of the argument itself.
Here’s the source I have been using to educate myself on the same. You will find some more .
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Unfortunately pointing them out does not necessarily mean that it will follow that your debate will progress 😉
I am glad you both like this post. Thinks I am sure you always try your best and I glad you like my blog!
Manblogg your observations and conclusions coincide with mine 😉