1.

ARGUMENTUM AD CAPTANDUM -- Any specious or unsound argument that is likely to

win popular acceptance. (literally, "for catching the common herd"). Comments like "This is
absurd - delete immediately" fall squarely into this category and should entirely ignored, as they
have absolutely no basis in logical discourse, whatsoever.

2. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM ("argument against the person") -- A common fallacy in

which someone argues against a position or claim by assailing the proponent of it. The truth or
falsehood of a position doesn't depend on who does (or doesn't) espouse it. e.g. "You can't trust
Jones' theory of electromagnetic particles because he's a communist." (The theory is good or bad
because it comports (or doesn't comport) with certain facts and evidence, not because the man
propounding it holds a political affiliation.) On at least one occasion (possibly two, but the
author appears to have deleted it) my articles have been recommended for deletion because of
my personal preferences.

3. ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM ("arguing from ignorance") -- A fallacy that occurs

when someone argues that because we don't know something is true, it must be false, or because
we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true. Ignorance or lack of evidence doesn't
necessarily mean a position or claim is true or false. Common Examples: "No one has ever
proven that UFOs exist. Therefore, they don't exist." (Something can exist despite the absence of
confirmation. Lack of proof is justification for caution or even scepticism, but not dogmatic
assertions.) "There is simply no proof that God exists. Therefore, God doesn't exist." (God might
exist even though there is no way empirically to prove it.)

4. ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM -- This fallacy occurs when an argument panders to

popular passion or sentiment. When, for instance, a politician exclaims in a debate that his
opponent "is out of step with the beliefs of everyone in the audience," he/she is committing the
fallacy. The legitimacy of a statement depends not on its popularity, but on its truth credentials.

5. FLAMBOYANCE -- The manner in which someone speaks can easily draw unwarranted
support for a thesis or idea. Incisive wit, verbal facility, equanimity and repartee have no bearing
at all on the soundness/legitimacy of a position. It is the essence of what is said, not the manner
in which it is said, that counts. As Bertrand Russell once noted, the purpose of being educated is
to defend ourselves against the seductions of eloquence.

6. HASTY GENERALIZATION -- The habit of arriving at a bold conclusion based on a

limited sample of evidence. This often occurs with statistics. For instance, someone may ask ten
women and one man what their opinion is of contemporary male-female relationships and from
this sample draw a sweeping conclusion; hasty generalization would then be said to exist. This
concept grossly undermines the validity of using Google hits as a measure of the validity of an
article. I'm not sure how this practice crept into Wiki, but Wiki rules do not support this practice
at all. The only criteria for validity has to do with verifiability.

7. IF-THEN FALLACIES -- 1. Affirming the consequent (If P, then Q. Q. Therefore P.). 2.

Denying the antecedent (If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q.) 3. Converting a conditional (If P,
then Q. Therefore if Q, then P.) 4. Negating antecedent and consequent (If P, then Q. Therefore
if not P, then not Q.). This arguement has often been used unintentionally concerning this issue,
usually by, "If this were a real issue, I would have heard about it before now."

8. INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE -- the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one's position in

the face of contradictory facts. Statements like "I really don't care what the experts say; no one is
going to convince me that I'm wrong"; "nothing you say is going to change my mind"; "yeah,
okay, whatever!" are examples of this fallacy.

9. RED HERRING -- An attempt to divert attention away from the crux of an argument by
introduction of anecdote, irrelevant detail, subsidiary facts, tangential references, and the like.
Like many logicall fallacies, this one overlaps others. I'll leave it to the reader to apply a few
brain cells and determine where (hint: several itmes listed at the top of this section qualify).

10. POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC ("after this, therefore because of this". Identifying
a false cause and effect) -- This might also be described as the causality fallacy: Event Y
follows from Event X, so one automatically concludes that X caused Y. (A young kid walks by a
neighbor's house and sees a cat scurrying away; he looks up and sees a giant hole in the window.
The hole, he infers, must have been caused by the cat, who fell through the pane. The inference
is hasty, because the hole might have been caused by any number of things -- a baseball that
missed a friend's glove and flew over his head; young brothers fighting inside and accidentally
smashing the window, etc.).

11. ARGUING FROM "IS" TO "OUGHT" -- A fallacy first articulated by David Hume
(1711-1776) in which someone argues from a premise containing only a descriptive term, to a
conclusion containing an "ought." Example: "There is nothing morally wrong with the institution
of slavery. It has been with us in some form for thousands of years." (The fact that slavery has
been with us or is with us is not moral justification of the act. What is may not be the same thing
as what ought to be.) Put in modern terms, "There is nothing wrong with the concept of men
wearing nothing below the beltline except for pants and low-heeled shoes. That's what men have
done for the last hundred years or so, so it's the way things ought to be."

12. ARGUMENTUM AD BACULINUM -- Fallacy that occurs when threat of force is made,
either implicitly or explicitly. Example: "I'm willing to discuss this in even more depth, but if
you don't come around soon, there may be dire consequences." (Baculum from the Latin means
"stick").

13. ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM -- Occurs when an appeal is made to pity or to

one's sympathetic nature. Example: "Former President Soeharto is an old, dying man. It is wrong
to make him stand trial for alleged offenses."

14. GENETIC FALLACY -- A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks the cause or origin of
a belief rather than its substance. Why a person believes something is not relevant to the belief's
legitimacy/soundness/validity. Example: "Smith's belief in God stems from a subsconscious need
for a fatherly figure and is thus a total joke." (The psychological link may in fact be true and may
even shed some light on the personality of Smith, but is nevertheless irrelevant to the
truth/falsehood of his belief.)