COW

REDEFINITION

FORMAL > PROPOSITIONhL

stop TO

CRUShL
INFORMAL RED EMOTIONhL
HERRINGS

COW
4
 FROM CONSEQUENCES

A ingfrom consequences is speaking for or against the truth of a statement by

a pealing to the consequences it would liave if true (or if false). But the fact that a
p o osition leads to some unfavorable result does not mean that it is false. Similarly,

j because a proposition has good consequences does not all of a sudden make
it true. As history professor and author David Hackett Fischer puts it, "It does not
fo low that a quality which attaches to an effect is transferable to the cause" [Fischer].

the case of good consequences, such an argument may appeal to an audience's

h es, which at times take the form of wishful thinking. In the case of bad 'l!tv
c sequences, the argument may instead play on an audience's fears. For example,
t Dostoevsky's line, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."
DI ussions of objective morality aside, the apparent grim consequences of a purely
aterialistic world say nothing about whether or not it is true that God exists.
EXP€MS
ne should keep in mind that such arguments are faulty only when they are used COW €NISSIONS
t upport or deny the truth of a statement, and not when they deal with decisions or
p •cies [Curtis]. For example, a politician may logically oppose raising taxes for fear
th t it would adversely impact the lives of his constituents.
1is fallacy is one of many in this book that can be termed a red herring, because
i btly redirects the discussion away from the original proposition—in this case, to

t proposition's result.

well, If W€ Of OOR COWS, WE to

BE FOR MORRIE
I formal Fallacy Red Herring Argument from Consequences COW EMISSIONS
 MAN

To "p t p a straw man" is to intentionally caricature a person's argument with the

aim o ttacking the caricature rather than the actual argument. Misrepresenting,
•ng, misconstruing, and oversimplifying an opponent's position are all means
misqu
by wh one can commit this fallacy. The straw man argument is usually more
absur Ian the actual argument, making it an easier target to attack. It may also lure
the ot r person toward defending the more ridiculous argument rather than their

origin one.

Fo ample, a skeptic of Darwinism might say, "My opponent is trying to convince

/ 111
you th we evolved from chimpanzees who were swinging from trees, a truly
ludicr s claim." This is a misrepresentation ofwhat evolutionary biology actually

claim ,
'hich is that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor millions of
o. Misrepresenting the idea is much easier than refuting the evidence for it. .14. 'A
years

tbfE COIORfUL tOOCflN wns

ONE Of fH€ ON

Infor a Fallacy Red Herring Straw Man

HE SHOWED HIS PAIN+JN6 CRIflCiZED
10
HOW DULL AND Lif€ccss fH€ tOUCAN HAD LOOKED
 TO IRRELEVANT

An ppeal to authority is an appeal to one's sense of modesty, which is to say, an

appe I to the feeling that others are moré knowledgeable [Engel], which may often—
but course not always—be true. One may reasonably appeal to pertinent authority,
as ntists and academics typically do: A vast majority of the things that we believe
in, ch as atoms and the solar system, are on reliable authority, as are all historical
CALENPÆP-/,
sta ents, to paraphrase C. S.An argument is more likely to be fallacious
Lewis. FBio

Movit
wh the appeal is made to an irrelevant authority, one who is not an expert on the TfA
w/
W/
iss e at hand. A similar appeal worth noting is the appeal to vague authority, where (DINA

an ea is attributed to a faceless collective. For example, "Professors in Germany

sho d such and such to be true."
e type of appeal to irrelevant authority is the appeal to ancient wisdom, in

wh c a belief is assumed to be true just because it originated some time ago. For

exa le, "Astrology was practiced in ancient China, one of the most technologically

ad ced civilizations of the day." This type of appeal often overlooks the fact that
so things are idiosyncratic and change naturally over time. For example, "We do
not t enough sleep nowadays. Just a few centuries ago, people used to sleep for
nin ours a night." There are all sorts of reasons why people might have slept longer
int past. The fact that they did is insufficient evidence for the argument that we

shou d do so today.

PPIOFESSOPI CHIMP, tHt woujs Most

12 Info al Fallacy Red Herring Genetic Fallacy Appeal to Irrelevant Authority
LIVING IS OMEN
EQUIVO TION

Equivoc n exploits the ambiguity of language by changing the meaning ofa word
during the course of an argument and using the different meanings to support an ill-

founded nclusion.2 (A word whose meaning is maintained throughout an argument

is describ d as being used univocally.) Consider the following argument: "How can 4
you be a inst faith when you take leaps of faith all the time: making investments,
trusting ends, and even getting engaged?" Here, the meaning of the word "faith" is

shifted m a spiritual belief in a creator to a willingness to undertake risks.

This lacy is commonly invoked in discussions of science and religion, where the
word " " may be used equivocally. In one context, it is a word that seeks cause,
which a happens is the main driver of science, and in another it is a word that

seeks p ose, which deals with morality and other realms where science may well
have no swers. For example, one might argue: "Science cannot tell us why things
are. WII do we exist? Why be moral? Thus, we need some other source to tell us why
things a pen."

2 The ill ration is based on an exchange between Alice and the White Queen in Lewis Carroll's Through
the Lo -king-Glass.

too CURIOUS SHE JAM

Inform I allacy Ambiguity Equivocation
SINCE NOå
 Afals ilenuna is an argument that presents a limited set of two possible categories

and a mes that everything in the scope of the discussion must be an element of that
set.3 T s, by rejecting one category, you are forced to accept the other. For example,
"In th tar on fanaticism, there are no sidelines; you are either with us or with the

fanati " In reality, there is a third option, one could very well be neutral; and a
fourtl tion, one may be against both; and even a fifth option, one may empathize
with elements of both.

In e Strangest Man, Paul Dirac's biographer recounts a parable that physicist

Ernes utherford once told his colleague Niels Bohr: A man bought a parrot from a
pet st
, only to bring it back because it didn't talk. After several such visits, the store

mana eventually said, "Oh, that's right! You wanted a parrot that talks. Please

forgiv le. I gave you the parrot that thinks" [Farmelo]. Rutherford was clearly

using e parable to illustrate the genius of the silent Dirac, but one can imagine how
some 1 e might use such a line of reasoning to suggest that a person is either silent

and a -Linker or talkative and an imbecile.

"WHICH Of AVOCADO WOULD to

3 This acy may also be referred to as the fallacy of the excluded Iniddle, the black and white fallacy or a

false 1 hotomy. SAID MERCHANT

to MIDDLE
Inform Fallacy Unwarranted Assumption False Dilemma
16
"WHICH SEEMS to BE MISSING
 NOT FOR

This fa cy assumes a cause for an event where there is no evidence that one exists.

When o events occur one after the other (or simultaneously), this may be by
coinci ce, or due to some other unknown factor. One cannot conclude that one
event sed the other without evidence. "The recent earthquake was because we

disobe d the king" is not a good argument.

Thi llacy has two specific types: "after this, therefore because of this" (post hoc

ergo p ter hoc) and "with this, therefore because of this" (cum hoc ergo propter
hoc). lth the former, because one event preceded another, it is said to have been

the ca s . With the latter, because an event happened at the same time as another,
it is sa .to have been the cause. In various disciplines, this is known as confusing

correl on with causation-4

Her s an example paraphrased from comedian Stewart Lee: "I can't say that,
becau n 1976 1 did a drawing of a robot and then Star Wars came out, they must
6
have c pied the idea from me." And here is another that I recently saw on an online
forum he hacker took down the railway company's website, and when I checked
the tra 1 schedule, what do you know, they were all delayed!" What the poster failed
to realiz is that trains can be late for all kinds of reasons, so without any kind of
scienti control, the inference that the hacker was the cause is unfounded.

Of DAWN,
As itt •ns out, eating chocolate and vcinning a Nobel Prize have been shown to be highly correlated, BEAVER WALHS All {HU WRY 10 {HE lop Of {HE MOUNåAlN
perha staising the hopes of many a chocolate eater [Pritchard): bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20356613

to come out tH€ SUN Does

18 Inform allacy Causal Fallacy Not a Cause for a Cause
 I TO
+ (k + 29 lc:.2

This a lacy plays on the fears of an audience by imagining a scary future that would

be of eir making if some proposition were accepted. Rather than provide solid

eviden e that the proposition would lead to a certain conclusion (which might be a

legiti ate cause for fear), such arguments rely on rhetoric, threats, or outright lies.
For mple, "I ask all employees to vote for my chosen candidate in the upcoming
elecho . Ifthe other candidate wins, he will raise taxes and many ofyou will lose
your
H is another example, drawn from the novel The Trial: "You should give

me a I our valuables before the police get here. They will end up putting them in
the s eroom, and things tend to get lost in the storeroom." Here, although the
arou nt is more likely a threat, albeit a subtle one, an attempt is made at reasoning.

Blat threats or orders that do not attempt to provide evidence should not be
con d with this fallacy, even if they exploit one's sense of fear [Engel].

n an appeal to fear proceeds to describe a series of terrifying events that

will ur as a result of accepting a proposition—without clear causal links between

the it becomes reminiscent of a slippery slope argument. And when the person
mal the appeal provides one and only one alternative to the proposition under
i'•jJ

atta it becomes reminiscent of a false dilemma.

cost MR DONKEY CONVINCED EVERYONE

If BECAME tiff SCHOOL SOON ENOUGH,
20 Infor I Fallacy Red Herring Emotional Appeal Appeal to Fear WOULD BE BY fROåS
 HAS

This lacy is committed when one forms a conclusion from a sample that is either

too s II or too special to be representative. For example, asking ten people on the

stree hat they think of the president's plan to reduce the deficit can in no way be
said gauge the sentiment of the entire nation.
Although convenient, hasty generalizations can lead to costly and catastrophic
resul s For instance, it may be argued that an engineering assumption led to the
explo on of the Ariane 5 rocket during its first test flight: The control software
had been extensively tested with the previous model, Ariane 4—but unfortunately
thes t sts did not cover all the possible scenarios of the Ariane 5, so it was m•ong to
assu that the data would carry over. Signing off on such decisions typically comes
do WII engineers' and managers' ability to argue, hence the relevance of this and
simil examples to our discussion of logical fallacies.

There is another example in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, where Alice infers

that, ince she is floating in a body of water, a railway station, and thus help, must be
close : "Alice had been to the seaside once in her life, and had come to the general
concl sion, that wherever you go to on the English coast you find a number of bathing
macl i es in the sea, some children digging in the sand with wooden spades, then a
HAVE f00D
row f odging houses, and behind them a railway station" [Carroll].

"I SEEN f00D

fOOD
DOCS NOT Offs

22 Inform Fallacy Weak Analogy Unrepresentative Sample Hasty Generalization

 TO IGNORANCE

This'klnd of argument assumes a proposition to be true simply because there is no

evide ce proving that it is false.5 Hence, absence of evidence is taken to be evidence
of abs ce. Carl Sagan gives this example: "There is no compelling evidence that
UFOs re not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist" [Sagan]. Similarly, before we
knew ow the pyramids were built, some concluded that, unless proven otherwise,
they st have been built by a supernatural power. But in fact, the "burden of proof'

alway ies with the person making a claim.

Mo logically, and as several others have put it, one should ask what is likely

base evidence from past observation. Which is more likely: That an object flying
throu space is a man-made artifact or natural phenomenon, or that it is aliens
visit •
from another planet? Since we have frequently observed the former and never
!hel ter, it is more reasonable to conclude that UFOs are probably not aliens visiting
from ter space.

A ecific form of the appeal to ignorance is the argumentfrom personal

incred lity, where a person's inability to imagine something leads them to believe
that i s false. For example, "It is impossible to imagine that we actually landed a

man the moon, therefore it never happened." Responses of this sort are sometimes
wittil ountered with, "That's why you're not a physicist!"

5 The is inspired by Neil deGrasse Tyson's response to an audience member's question on

astration
UF s bookofbadarguments.com/video/tyson

LOOK! Of MOVING
24 Infor I Fallacy Fallacy of Missing Data Appeal to Ignorance SKY I DONt KNOW If IS SO If

VISItIM6 US
 NO SCOTSMAN

This argument comes up after someone has made a general claim about a group
Pi6SeflBJih
oft ngs, and then been presented with evidence challenging that claim. Rather totes JVSt
tha vising their position, or contesting the evidence, they dodge the challenge by
ONLY IN
arbitrarily redefining the criteria for membership in that group.6
F example, someone may posit that programmers are creatures with no social
skill . If someone else comes along and repudiates that claim by saying, "But John is
a pr ammer, and he is not socially awkward at all," this may provoke the response,
"Ye , utJohn isn't a true programmer." Here, it is not clear what the attributes ofa

pro mmer are; the category is not as clearly defined as that of, say, people with blue
eye . he ambiguity allows the stubborn mind to redefine things at will.

s fallacy was coined by Antony Flew in his book Thinking about Thinking.
Th he gives the following example: Hamish is reading the newspaper and comes
acr a story about an Englishman who has committed a heinous crime, to which

he eacts by saying, "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day, he comes
acr ss a story about a Scotsman who has committed an even worse crime. Instead of
am ding his claim about Scotsmen, he reacts by saying, "No true Scotsman would .13 ,

do ch a thing" [Flew].

an attacker maliciously redefines a category, knowing well that by doing so, he or she is
tionally misrepresenting it, the attack becomes reminiscent of the straw man fallacy.

26 Inf r al Fallacy Ambiguity Equivocation Redefinition No True Scotsman

 A gen •c fallacy is committed when an argument is either devalued or defended
WHH DOE
solely because of its origins. In fact, an afgument's history or the origins of the person HIGHNESS HOW CAN W€
maki it have no effect whatsoever on its validity. As T. Edward Damer points
out, hen one is emotionally attached to an idea's origins, it is not always easy to

disre ard those feelings when evaluating the argument's merit [Damer].
WHO DEVELOPED HIS IDEAS

Co ider the following argument: "Of course he supports the union workers on WHILE ON
strik ; le is, after all, from the same village." Here, the argument supporting the
workers is not being evaluated based on its merits; rather, because the person behind

it ha ens to come from the same village as the protesters, weare led to infer that
his p Sition is worthless. Here is another example: "As men and women living in the
twe first century, we cannot continue to hold these Bronze Age beliefs." Why not,
one ght ask. Are we to dismiss all ideas that originated in the Bronze Age simply
because they came about at that time?

C versely, one may also invoke the genetic fallacy in a positive sense, by saying,
for e 'ample, "Jack's views on art cannot be contested; he comes from a long line
of emment artists." Here, the evidence used for the inference is as lacking as in the

pre us ex'amples.

28 Infor al Fallacy Red Herring Genetic Fallacy

 Y RSSOCIATION

Guilt b ssociation is used to discredit an argument for proposing an idea that is

shared some socially demonized individual or group. For example, "My opponent
is calling for a healthcare system that would resemble that of socialist countries.
Clearly lat would be unacceptable." Whether or not the proposed healthcare system
resemb s that of socialist countries has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is good

or bad; i is a complete non sequitur.

Ano Jer argument, which has been repeated ad nauseam in some societies, is this:

"We ca ot let women drive cars because people in godless countries let their women

drive c rs." Essentially, what these examples try to argue is that some group of people
is abso ely and categorically bad. Hence, sharing even a single attribute with that

group uld make one a member of it, which would then bestow on one all the evils
associ t d with that group.

/h ROSPÆOOS
IS AN DICtÅt01SHlP

II

ytJ

30
Inform I allacy Red Herring Guilt by Association MY OPPONENt Btl\CVtS wt ON tDOCfttlON
DO YOU WHO HIMSELF II!
 IRMINC CONSEQUENT
WEflPl
O e of several valid formal arguments is known as jnodus ponens (the mode of
wtAhiNG
ing) and takes the following form: If A then C, A; hence C. More formally:
A , A C. A is called the antecedent and C the consequent, and they form two AND Not KNIGH{.
pr isses and a conclusion. For example:

remiss: If A then C
water is boiling at sea level, then its temperature is at least 1000C.

1is water is boiling at sea level; hence its temperature is at least 1000C. in
emiss: A Conclusion: C
0

an argument is sound in addition to being valid.

finning the consequent is a formal fallacy that takes this form: If A then C,
C; Yence A. The error lies in assuming that because the consequent is true, the
a • cedent must also be true, which in reality need not be the case. 0 o:

For example, "People who go to college are successful. John is successful, hence
h ust have gone to college." Clearly, John's success could be a result of schooling,

byt t could also be a result of his upbringing, or perhaps his eagerness to overcome•
di cult circumstances. Generally, because schooling is not the only path to success,
one unnot say that a person who is successful must have received schooling.

NOt WHO
32 Fo al Fallacy Propositional Fallacy Affirming the Consequent HAS to A HN16H1.
 ftPPE TO HYPOCRISY

Also -
by its Latin name, tu quoque, meaning "you too," this fallacy involves
count ing someone's argument by pointing out that it conflicts with his or her

own p actions or statements [Engel]. Thus, by answering a charge with a charge,

it divert attention from the argument at hand to the person making it. This
chara ristic makes the fallacy a particular type of ad hominem attack. Of course,
just b use someone has been inconsistent about his position does not mean that his WHY
positio cannot be correct.
On episode of the topical British TV show Have I Got Newsfor You, a panelist
fibOOtl
object to a protest in London against corporate greed because of the protesters'

appar t hypocrisy, pointing out that while they professed to be against capitalism, Oil Of ?
they c tinued to use smartphones and buy coffee:
He is another example, from Jason Reitman's movie Thank You for Smoking,
wher tu quoque—laden exchange is ended by the smooth-talking tobacco lobbyist
Nick aylor: "I'm just tickled by the idea of the gentleman from Vermont calling
mea mcrite when this same man, in one day, held a press conference where he
calle r the American tobacco fields to be slashed and burned, then he jumped 1/165

on a przvate jet and flew down to Farm Aid where he rode a tractor onstage as he
bemo ed the downfall of the American farmer."

7 That ercerpt is available here: bookofbadarguments.com/video/hignfy

39 Infor Fallacy Red Herring Genetic Fallacy Ad Hominem Appeal to Hypocrisy

 A slippe slope argument attempts to discredit a proposition by arguing that its

acceptan e will undoubtedly lead to a sequence of events, one or more of which are
If Iff IN

undesir ble.8 Although the sequence of events may be possible—each transition YOOPb fhONt HE
occurri with some probability—this type of argument assumes that every transition
is inevi a le—while providing no evidence in support of that. This fallacy plays on the
ON THU DAY
fearso a audience and is related to a number of other fallacies, such as the appeal AND tHE
to fear, t e false dilemma, and the argumentfrom consequences. HU Will
For • mple, "We shouldn't allow people uncontrolled access to the internet.
The nex -thing you know they will be frequenting pornographic websites, and soon
enough, ur entire moral fabric will disintegrate and we will be reduced to animals."

As is gla ingly clear, no evidence is given, other than unfounded conjecture, that

internet ccess implies the disintegration of a society's moral fabric. Moreover, the

argum nt presupposes certain things about people's behavior within the society.

IHAt 6SCAlflttD
QUICKLY

8 Thes i ery slope fallacy described here is of a causal type.

36 *Infor Fallacy Causal Fallacy Not a Cause for a Cause Slippery Slope
 I TO THE

Also nown as the appeal to the people, this argument uses the fact that many people
(or ven a majority) believe in something as evidence that it must be true. This type of

ar ent has often impeded the widespread acceptance of a pioneering idea. For

exa le, most people in Galileo's day believed that the sun and the planets orbited
aro d Earth, so Galileo faced ridicule for his support of the Copernican model,
whic correctly puts the sun at the center of our solar system. More recently,
phy igian Barry Marshall had to take the extreme measure of dosing himself with
w€fth Hftt WHEN
H. ylori bacteria in order to convince the scientific community that it may cause

pep i ulcers, a theory that was, initially, widely dismissed.

ase
vertisements frequently use this method to lure people into accepting something IS ONE?
because it is popular. For example, "All the cool kids use this hair gel; be one of
sol

the " Although becoming a "cool kid" is an enticing offer, it does nothing to support

the perative that one should buy the advertised product. Politicians also use similar

rhe ic to add momentum to their campaigns and influence voters.

Infor al Fallacy Red Herring Appeal to the Bandwagon

38
 An a hominem argument (from the Latin for "to the man") is one that attacks a
rather than the argument he or she is making, with the intention of diverting
pers
the scussion and discrediting their argument.9 For example, "You're not a historian;
n't you stick to your own field?" Here, the fact that someone is not a historian
why
has impact on the merit of their argument (since, of course, it is not the case

that yone other than a historian is automatically wrong on the subject), so it does

nothi g to strengthen the attacker's position.

IS type of personal attack is referred to as abusive ad hominem. A second type,
circ stantial ad hominem, attacks a person for cynical reasons, usually by making
a ju ent about their intentions. For example, "You don't really care about lowering

crime in the city; you just want people to vote for you." But even if a person would
bene t from their argument's acceptance, this does not mean they must be wrong.
ad hominem attack sometimes succeeds at changing the subject by devolving

into a tu quoque exchange. For example, John says, "This man is m•ong because
he I no integrity; just ask him why he was fired from his last job," to which Jack
replies, "How about we talk about the fat bonus you took home last year despite half
you ompany being downsized," by which point the discussion has gone completely
offt ck. That said, there are situations where one may legitimately question a
YOUR
per 's credibility, such as during trial testimony.
WROf€
9 Th lustration is inspired by a discussion on Usenet several years ago in which an overzealous and RODNEY to
stubborn programmer was a participant.
too SilJPID to UNDERStftND DIff€RENCE BEåWE€N flN

40 Info I Fallacy Red Herring Genetic Fallacy Ad Hominem INSUlf HOMINEM

 CIR REASONING YES ONE,
Cir ar reasoning is one of four types of arguments known as begging the question,
[Da er] where one implicitly or explicitly assumes the conclusion in one or more
BOOH
of premisses. In circular reasoning, a conclusion is either blatantly used as a
YOU SURE
pre ss, or more often, it is reworded to appear as though it is a different proposition
wh in fact it is not. For example, "You're utterly wrong because you're not making
tHflt I WONT fALl
any s nse." Here, the two propositions are one and the same, since being wrong and to iHE GROUND?
not aking any sense mean the same thing in this context. The argument is simply
sta g "Because of x therefore x," which is meaningless.
ircular argument may at times rely on unstated premisses, which can make it

mo e difficult to detect. Consider someone who tells an atheist that he should believe

in d because otherwise he will go to hell. The unstated premiss behind anyone

goi? to hell is that there exists a God to send him there. Hence, the premiss "There
ex• a God who sends nonbelievers to hell" is used to support the conclusion "There
exi a God." As comedian Josh Thomas tells Peg on the Australian TV series Please
e, "You can't threaten an atheist with hell, Peg. It doesn't make any sense. It's .11

lik hippie threatening to punch you in your aura."

LION IS ALWAYS

42 Inf al Fallacy Begging the Question Circular Reasoning

(M ACCORDING SCA
COM SITION DIVISION

One mits the fallacy of composition.by inferring that, because the parts of a

whol lave a particular attribute, the whöle must have that attribute also. But to

para rase Peter Millican, if every sheep in a flock has a mother, it does not then
folio that the flock has a mother. Here is another example: "Each module in
this c are system has been subjected to a set of unit tests and passed them all.
The ore, when the modules are integrated, the software system will not violate any
of th nvariants verified by those unit tests." The reality is that putting individual
pa gether to form a system introduces a new level of complexity, due to how the
teract, which may in turn introduce new ways for things to go 1An•ong.
C nversely, to commit the fallacy of division is to infer that part of a whole must
hav me attribute because the whole to which it belongs happens to have that
attri ute. For example, "Our team is unbeatable. Any one of our players would be able
to t on a player from the other team and outshine him." While it may be true that
the m as a whole is unbeatable, this could well be the result of how the players'
indi skills work together—so one cannot use this as evidence that each player
is u eatable on their own.

Info mal Fallacy Unwarranted Assumption Composition and Division