The classification widely adopted by modern logicians and based on that of Aristotle, Organon (Sophistici elenchi), is as follows: - (1) Fallacy of Accident, i.e. arguing erroneously from a general rule to a particular case, without proper regard to particular conditions which vitiate the application of the general rule; e.g. if manhood suffrage be the law, arguing that a criminal or a lunatic must, therefore, have a vote; (2) Converse Fallacy of Accident, i.e. arguing from a special case to a general rule; (3) Irrelevant Conclusion, or Ignoratio Elenchi, wherein, instead of proving the fact in dispute, the arguer seeks to gain his point by diverting attenton to some extraneous fact (as in the legal story of "No case. Abuse the plaintiff's attorney"). Under this head come the so-called argumentum (a) ad hominem, (b) ad populum, (c) ad baculum, (d) adverecundiam, common in platform oratory, in which the speaker obscures the real issue by appealing to his audience on the grounds of (a) purely personal considerations, (b) popular sentiment, (c) fear, (d) conventional propriety. This fallacy has been illustrated by ethical or theological arguments wherein the fear of punishment is subtly substituted for abstract right as the sanction of moral obligation. (4) Petitio principii (begging the question) or Circulus in probando (arguing in a circle), which consists in demonstrating a conclusion by means of premises which presuppose that conclusion. Jeremy Bentham points out that this fallacy may lurk in a single word, especially in an epithet, e.g. if a measure were condemned simply on the ground that it is alleged to be "un-English"; (5) Fallacy of the Consequent, really a species of (3), wherein a conclusion is drawn from premises which do not really support it; (6) Fallacy of False Cause, or Non Sequitur (" it does not follow"), wherein one thing is incorrectly assumed as the cause of another, as when the ancients attributed a public calamity to a meteorological phenomenon; (7) Fallacy of Many Questions (Plurium Interrogationum), wherein several questions are improperly grouped in the form of one, and a direct categorical answer is demanded, e.g. if a prosecuting counsel asked the prisoner "What time was it when you met this man?" with the intention of eliciting the tacit admission that such a meeting had taken place.
Galatea wrote:Also, not a fallacy, but sarcasm is absolutely inappropriate on these boards, especially used to (usually) incorrectly represent an opposite point of view. For example: I'm a smelly republican! I love war and I love Jesus! I don't need to think for myself because the government does it for me! War is awesome! Poor people are lazy! Etc. etc.Oh, and the use of the emoticon. Same thing as rolling your eyes at someone. Totally dismissive and inappropriate.
76,729 Literary Works • 386,279 Reviews