11 ways you are thoroughly (but interestingly) wrong

April 23, 2012 | By Abraham | 93 comments

The folks at Your Logical Fallacy Is have compiled a list of 24 common ways that you and I are often mistaken in the way we think. I have to say that looking through their site is perhaps the most fun I’ve ever had being told how wrong I am. And not just wrong in a certain instance, but consistently and fundamentally flawed in the very way I think.

Fun, right? I thought so.

Included at the site is a free, very high-res poster for those of you who may have a reason to hang these as a reminder on the wall. Here are 11 (out of 24) of the logical fallacies from the poster…

(via MetaFilter)

Like 22 Words on Facebook


  1. creationist says:

    The personal incredulity and also the fallacy fallacy often apply to creationists as well. “Scientists” and those who follow then often find the concept if intelligent design hard to understand and so instead of doing any actual research into the matter dismiss it as false. Also many evolutionists are well prepared to present their aide of the argument because they want to sway people to their way of thinking, but many creationists are unprepared for such arguments because, lets face it, we have lives.

    1. Rational thinker says:

      Congratulations. You used 5 of the 11 fallacies in a single post. Can anyone guess which ones they are?

      1. Janine says:

        I’ll get the first! Ad Hominem – putting quote marks around “scientists” in an attempt to discredit the profession.

        I could write much, much more… but I don’t wish to anger myself. Arguing on the internet leads no where :)

        1. james says:

          yep basically people on the internet just sit around pointing out each other’s fallacies until one person can’t think of the words to defend themselves anymore

          yeah sure I could point out that every use of “is” or “to be” is a fallacy but I’m not going to go around demanding that everybody speaks in perfect e-prime
          I really hate it when people know the reason/ answer behind somebody’s argument but argue them anyway so that they can get them to talk about their rationality on the matter
          basically like that one guy that goes around correcting everybody’s grammar
          implying that people on the internet only do one thing
          implying that other things don’t happen in internet arguments
          implying that you should be more like me
          implying that I’m not wrong
          implying that acknowledging these fallacies makes me right
          implying that acknowledging this fallacy makes me right

    2. A Pother Solver says:

      “Also many evolutionists are well prepared to present their aide of the argument because they want to sway people to their way of thinking, but many creationists are unprepared for such arguments because, lets face it, we have lives.”

      Wow. Just wow. Let’s see what you’ve used in this one sentence.
      ad hominem — evolutionists waste their time gathering pointless “proof”
      black-or-white — one is either on evolutionist side OR creationist side
      burden of proof — creationism is correct because it doesn’t need proof

      Honestly, it’s people like you that are proving that intelligent design can’t be taken seriously. I find it odd that people of supposed faith are incapable of believing that their God has the power to create a system that would allow even those without faith to come to understand it.

    3. King Of Bob says:

      Intelligent design is not difficult to understand. There is no reason to believe it in the first place. Right now you’re using the “burden of proof” fallacy. Suggesting that the onus is on science to prove intelligent design wrong. The fact is, the evidence simply does not support intelligent design.

      You’re also committing an ad hominem argument against all evolutionists by suggesting they have no lives.

      Were you trying to see how many fallacious arguments you could fit into one paragraph? You’ve even committed a few that aren’t mentioned here.

    4. human says:

      This is in response to james janine and rational thinker so just pretend I started under james

      Yeah I hate it when im trying to say an opinion and make my point but then someone comes along
      and is all like well hey man that doesn’t make sense discredits a key point of my arguement
      and im all like pfft grammer nazi – black and white straw man adhominem

      while I agree its a pain in the ass when someone ignores your enitre arguement and distracts
      and disrupts the procession of discorse because of simple grammer and spelling mistakes,
      which can be pretty infuriating, it’s really hard to make the leap that trying to point out
      why someone is wrong about something is as dickish of a move as being a grammer nazi.

      There is nothing dickish about seeing someones arguement finding a flaw and pointing it out to
      them then having them explain it then based on that answer try to further fix the problem
      in there arguement or your own. Its sort of like looking at a math equation that someone
      has just answered but you notice the answer is wrong so you go back and find out why and say
      “hey you forgot to subtract X from the equation try solving the problem now” since conceptual
      problems can be solved with reasoning calculation and therefore math is involved
      sort of like linguistic calculation. There is totally nothing wrong with pointing something
      out in someones arguement either.

      BUT, there is a Massive difference between debating and arguing Janine what your actually doing
      you and rational thinker is harassing and antagonizing creationist. By saying “Congradulations.
      You used 5 out of the 11 fallacies in a single post. Can anyone guess what they are?” You are
      sort of saying ” Congradulations your retarded can anyone tell me why?”

      Instead of pointing out what was wrong with his statement in a way that didnt use adhominem
      yourself you persecute him for being an idiot so what he is right?

      This is what I HATE about Athiests and Agnostics on the internet (being agnostic myself) you
      proffess that life is better without relgion, you proffess that its wasting minds and corrupting society
      you proffess that its evil and how do you go about talking people down from relgion?
      YOU ANTAGONIZE THEM you ridule them every chance you get you make them look foolish ignorant
      paint them as fool, for what? To prove your superior? that your’s is the better way of life?

      How is someone supposed to free themselfs of the shackles of organized religions if the oppisition
      just insults them whenever they try to speak instead of actively and non aggressively trying to
      change their point of view? We look like a bunch of fucking assholes on the internet and you know what
      SO DO THEY

      Thats the fucking problem WE SHOULD KNOW BETTER, just calmy debate with them if they get mad so be it
      they attack you personally so what, if you show more compassion and acceptance and tolerance then
      they do, provide more logical ways of dealing with lifes problems tragedies and hardships that
      work and feel so much better than guilt and vanity, if you provide the substance and a welcoming atmosphere
      that says “If you shun your religion you will be treated as we are treating you now”
      then people just might start dropping religions.

      Thousands of priest molest little children, massive money laundering banking schemes rampant
      corruption and most christians are still Catholic.

      Can anyone tell me why?

      It is because they provide a sense of community a sense of belonging something that says, as long
      as you think exactly what we think we accept you.

      What your message is … As long as you think exactly what we think we accept you

      No there is no middle ground here organized religion is wrong but we aren’t NAZIS you need to
      persuade people to your side of the argument not insult and ridicule people because of what they

      Way to to be a rational thinker… Rational thinker

      1. Paula says:

        I quit reading that post because of the bad spelling. Can you spell “grammar”? No. Can you spell “irony”?

        1. Adam says:

          I don’t even know why I’m replying to this. To think that this response is on a site were the article is on logical fallacies! If you’re not going to address what he has to say then don’t say anything. Often I see spelling so bad that I wonder why they even bother trying to write. However, this does not take away from the validity of what they have to say. I hope I somehow missed your tongue in cheek.

      2. Dialogue says:

        Normally I never read comments on internet posts because they’re always so disproportionately angry about everything, and after a little while it starts to give me a headache. Here’s an XKCD comic on that subject for you: http://xkcd.com/386/

        However, I really enjoyed human’s post because it seems like a call for peaceful dialogue. I think my favorite of the logical fallacies listed above is the Fallacy Fallacy, where we dismiss another person’s argument merely because it contains a mistake of some sort. In my experience, when I take the time to hear someone out and listen to their thoughts, often through our conversation we are both able to work out the problems in our own arguments (since I have found that some of my arguments have problems too), just by bouncing ideas off of one another. Say you are an atheist evolutionist talking to a Christian creationist: maybe you can learn something about faith and what it means to be committed to belief in a benevolent God above and beyond everything else. If that seems deluded to you, maybe you should try to understand why someone else might believe that instead of dismissing it outright. Say you are a creationist talking to an evolutionist: maybe you can learn to consider the merits of a point of view that is foreign to yours, even if it seems like a heresy. Maybe you should try to think about the difference between scientific claims and theological claims. Admittedly, this is very difficult on an internet forum because none of us can see each other; it’s pretty hard to ask questions when there’s such a long lag time between comments, and pretty hard to empathize with someone when you can’t see their face. I think the fact that none of us can see each other also contributes to the general incivility that is so widespread in internet forums. Hopefully, none of us would speak this way to a person who was standing right in front of us. :-)

        So, in short, thanks, human for casting a vote for dialogue.

        1. Sam says:

          And the whole “lets be peaceful” is the middle ground fallacy. Bull feces. 2+2≠5. You say it does, and I say it’s 4, but that doesn’t mean 4.5 is then the answer we should settle on to be “peaceful”.

          2+2≠5, not now, not because Holy Jeebus said so, not because it’s written down in a book or sung from a minaret or tooted out in morse code on a ram’s horn.

          Some things are just wrong, and one of those things is that there’s a frucking god.

    5. Crazy neo taoist that can raise the dead. says:

      Step up bro. Create a logical argument. You cant go on sheer biblical text. Read some Sagan, Phillip K. Dick, broaden your horizons. Because what you say, they wont hear you. If they and you don’t know what your trying to express, they’ll ignore you. Even if your message is one of love, you cant get hateful with the person. So many different perspectives come from so many lives, this only leads to the idea that everyone’s existence is unique and runs parallel with every bodies own existence intercepting at points.

      You cant deny what has been observed, you can only hypothesize from the outcome. And this is coming from someone who believes in “god”.

    6. Jamie Courtes says:

      There is 0 evidence of God.
      There is 0 evidence of Jesus being the son of god.
      There is 0 evidence that Mohammed / Moses were prophets.

      Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.
      The bible is as much proof of that as the Harry Potter movies are proof of Harry Potters existence.

      1. Steve says:

        Those are some pretty exceptional claims there Sir.

        We both shoulder the burden of proof. You have to defend your claims. I need to defend mine. Consider your own eye. Do you really think mere chance created that incredibly amazing instrument? Perhaps you do. I just don’t have that much faith.
        Jesus being the son of God? How about the reality, which I know I would have to provide, th at the almost all of the disciples were killed for proclaiming the news of Jesus? They gained nothing you’d consider valuable, unless it was true. In which case they are better off than you could imagine. These won’t convince you, I know. But let’s not act like your position is a slam dunk.

    7. Travsta says:

      Did you even read the article before posting your comment laced with virtually all the fallacies listed in the article?

  2. downeastcajun says:

    lives spent listening to an imaginary person telling you how to live your life. not much of a life, i’d say

      1. PhilA says:

        you’re willing to accept an ETERNAL life of knowing that because someone who is inherently good, doesn’t get into your “Heaven” because they didn’t know about or believe in your God? wow, you are a shallow and willing to happily look down on people who treat others better than you, not just for 100 years, not just a thousand, but FOR EVER, with no chance of a redemption!
        just think of it, a 10 year old child doesn’t believe in your God, and so gets damned to ETERNITY in Hell, just because they didn’t bow down and worship your omnipotent God – what a great person you are, and what a benevolent being it is!!!

        sorry, but I’d rather live a good life now, knowing that I’m helping others, rather than looking down on others and believing that you can live an eternity bowing down to a being that is willing to put someone through eternal torment just for not being open minded, or born in the wrong part of the world – according to your “rules”, the American Indians, Aboriginals, Eskimos, Orientals, etc, all were damned to Hell because they weren’t born near the middle east 2,000 years ago – yup, sounds like a benevolent being to me – NOT!

        1. Tristan says:

          You sir have just committed many of the fallacies of the original post. I really do think you should get more information for your argument. It is severely lacking from this side. There is much more to God than you know and you have misrepresented Him significantly. I’d encourage you to look more into it and see where you have been off the mark. You might find that God isn’t bad at all like you seem to be pre-disposed to. Although, anyone who doesn’t love the Lord is pre-disposed to denying Him and loving themselves (no offense intended sir!).

          1. JFC says:

            “God isn’t bad at all”

            Except for that time he flooded the world and murdered everyone. Or that time he summoned two bears to murder a couple dozen children for making fun of a man’s bald head. Or the very fact that he created a realm of eternal, fiery torment specifically for anyone who doesn’t fall down and worship him… or, if you believe many Christians, anyone who doesn’t worship him “correctly.” I’m sorry, but even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals God to be a selfish, petty, sociopathic being.

            Why anyone would worship an entity personally responsible for such suffering and torment is beyond me.

        2. Ellen says:

          That would depend on which system of religion you adhered to.

          You should check out the others before you condemn all those who believe in a Supreme Being to be in a position of disallowing all those who never had the opportunity to hear the word as being damned.
          For instance: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes that all those who have died without the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel will be taught in the spirit world, and baptisms for the dead will give them the opportunity to accept and move forward.

          This applies to those who did have the opportunity but were dissuaded in their belief by the fear, cunning, and guile of those around them who chose not to believe that way.

          A truly loving God makes a way for all His children to return to his presence, if they will.

          1. markrobertmurphySR says:

            wow – plawsubul – plawsabillty red/blu controling qwestionable debateing loaded qwestions.remain a trick – of sedd ivry schooled canadentes..usehwaly 1..when there too…ivy leaughers ‘then plwasabul sentencing entailes [ evengelial] whon sermyin..wryten ahnd pro nounced it …depikkted serrmon..by whon to sedd ….folloewrs/parishners..who are ther to here good thing about the fayth…..science playes a much bigger hand today morr then ever…..opining morr doors then ever chalinging so sedd worshyips – re wryten old new testaments..wyth undesputed meww wave or fact……away rrom what mankind has re re rwriten – inn scrolls/scriptures-understanding – fayrhs place wyith hope ahnd unbiased oppinion,,,,toward other religions ahnd or house of wershyip’s comoddary……is shunned -soo at th start of whons wrok week…goes onh wtyh doubt…..due to what has knott byinn wyitten /twisted occrences….onle this new god-or badd – news …isnt embreced its ‘ therory..the very same wryttin theroy – …bhut wyth science facts to be newly wryitten……..as one of ..many but wohnt be embreced..by soeme………the sun setts- the sunn ryises…………ure here nowe….ryte nowe….plz dwnt bee in denile…./.ty mrmm sr

    1. Doug says:

      I realize that it was not stated in the example, but declaring that there is NO teapot in orbit around the sun is using the black and white argument. If you don’t believe there is a teapot in orbit, fine, you don’t have to, but to declare that there is NOT a teapot orbiting the sun, or never will be, when YOU have no idea, is just as ignorant. There could very well be a teapot inside a probe, orbiting the sun, launched by Russia or some other country. I personally don’t believe there is, but I don’t know. This pertains to Atheism, if you don’t believe in Christianity, that doesn’t mean there is NO God. Example, if I write a book about Elvis, and it says that he can fly and heal the sick, and you don’t believe it, the atheist’s reasoning not only disbelieves the book, but it also declares that there is, or was NO Elvis, and ALSO that there are no humans, or any beings whatsoever. There very well could be a God somewhere, God could be electicity with no personality whatsoever, but I’m pretty sure electricity exists, if you prove that the bible is untrue, that has NO bearing on whether or not there is a God. If you disprove my crazy Elvis book, it has NO bearing on whether or not there was an Elvis. BTW, Elvis could fly!!

  3. Valerie says:

    As a “creationist” myself, the above statement by “creationist” completely irks me. We are not more or less human than anyone else, therefore, we all have “lives”. Also, if you want anyone to have an ounce of respect for your views, you’d do best not to belittle others. Whether your other comments are right or wrong, facts or assumptions, please leave off the jab at the end.

    I can’t believe I just commented on a comment…

    1. My name is.... says:

      I think people need to take an acceptance course from Valerie. Belittling someone’s beliefs is only going to make matters worse. Respect is the key word here.

      1. Fulton says:

        I find it hard to believe how disrespectful people can be! I myself constantly inundated with disrespectful commentary every time I try to tell someone about my god, Odin. Or when I try to introduce them to my invisible pet unicorn. People seem to be naturally filled with disdain for lunatic ideas with no grounding in reality :(

  4. rya says:

    This girl on my friend’s facebook status pretty much went down this entire list. I’m laughing right now. xD

  5. JoeS says:

    I would argue that the slippery slope is not necessarily a fallacy. It is a look at the philosophical underpinnings of a position and the logical consequences of an idea. And it often holds up when you look back at history.

    1. sara m says:

      I’m no expert, but I think that while slippery slope might be interesting and true, it doesn’t have any bearing on the validity of the primary argument.

      I do wonder how a slippery slope fallacy is related to reductio ad absurdum argument. Anyone know?

      I also wonder how ad hominem fallacies differ from considering the source. For example, giving more or less weight to Sally’s argument depending on whether or not she has been convicted of tax fraud. I guess technically she might still be right, but her record helps to help narrow down how many voices I have to listen to. I know that if Joe Schmo has been wrong the last nine times I’ve given him an ear, I probably don’t need to waste my time on the tenth listen. Too bad for me if that’s the one time he has something worth considering.

      1. JoeS says:

        Fair enough. It is not an argument against, but a tool for evaluating an argument.

        The slippery slope and the strawman (reductio ad absurdum) can be used in conjunction, but don’t have to be. The example given uses both. I thought that a lot of the examples employed other fallacies themselves.

        Ad hominem is the opposite of appeal to authority. One says “You are stupid, therefore your position is wrong” while the other says “This person is smart, they agree with me, therefore, I am correct.” Just because Joe Schmo is wrong a lot and Dr. Poindexter is smart has no bearing on the validity of his position. It is right or wrong on its own merits.

        1. John says:

          “Reductio ad absurdem” is not the same as a strawman. Instead, it takes the presented argument, accurately summarises it, and presents the results of taking said argument as truth.

          “Strawman” means arguing against something the speaker didn’t say. “Reductio ad absurdem” is about taking the speaker as if he was honest, and truly believed that his position was the best position.

    2. John says:

      Yes, if you can prove that, say, gay marriage will lead to bestiality (it won’t but this is an example), then slippery slope is not a fallacy whatsoever.

  6. Janine says:

    The Gambler’s Fallacy – “Suffering a kind of economic form of natural selection” – made me laugh :)

  7. Eric says:

    “We must use reason to arrive at the truth. I know this because…”

    Reason proving reason.

    Begging the question, at its finest.

    1. FrikkinLazer says:

      So… what do YOU use to arrive at truth? The only reliable method we have is reason. The proof is in the pudding, and nothing other than reason has even made any pudding.

      It is possible that reason might be broken in some way, but since it’s the only game in town, whenever we need to figure out if something is true or not reason is the only tool we have.

    2. mj says:

      I find this one interesting. I’d like to know what others think.

      Because in my mind: stating that something is the ultimate authority (be it reason, a holy book, science etc) is ultimately a circular argument. If in theory something is of the highest authority on a matter, only itself would be able to back itself up, as it were. Otherwise, whatever else is used would be a higher authority.

      I know I worded that badly.

      1. mcthfg says:

        You’re equating science and religion. Don’t do that. Here’s why:

        Science is testable and reproducible. Religion is neither of these things. For instance, I can prove to you that gravity exists – we can do an experiment. You can also do the same experiment, and get the same results. If you get different results, I may be wrong, and the theory gets changed. There is no way to prove that, for instance, that miracles exist – no one has ever performed one, much less duplicated that performance.

        Science never claims to be an ultimate authority. It is a method by which we discover and test things. Religion is belief, without proof, of something supernatural.

        Two very different things.

        1. jamesman says:

          Religion has as much proof as science. You are even taught in school these days that “science cannot be proven and scientists do not try to prove.” Instead, scientists try to give evidence that something is true. This evidence is usually proven wrong by more up-to-date experiments.

          There is much more proof that a God exists than evolution exists.

          1. dsimathguy says:

            So true Jamesman!

            There are so many testimonies of things that could not possibly be explained by science but that could explaine by an intelligent Creator who truly loves and cares for us. There are also more holes in “evolution” than a slice of Swiss cheese. You can find these holes in many reliable sources and scienfic data. And let’s not even talk about the Big Bang.

          2. Brine says:

            yeah one of my friends drove off of a bridge and blacked out but somehow he found himself alive an hour later on the bank of the river he drove into. that should prove by itself that a god was involved

          3. Fulton says:

            That is absolutely true. Why, you’ve got the thunder, right? Bam, proof of Thor. And we’ve got all kinds of mischief out there. That’s that eternal joker Loki! The proof is right under our noses, and it’s everywhere.

  8. Jason Kanz says:

    The straw man argument seems particularly evident in debates I have seen lately. For example, representing those who hold to the truthfulness of Scripture assumes that we base those assumptions upon…how does it go…”the Great and Infallible Book of Most Infallible Sayings” or something to that effect rather than examining other converging lines of evidence. Theists and a-theists both seem prone to mischaracterizing the viewpoints of others.

    1. kinglagalot says:

      Yeah, and the discovery of the Scriptures in that cave with the vidence that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses should prove that the Bible is true. Even the Judiciary System is based on people swearing on The Holy Bible. If we get rid of the Bible, then no one will be able to swear to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

  9. Cameron says:

    Interesting to see the use of fallacies in these comments . . . to correct the fallacies of others. Obviously both are wrong.

    Oh wait. Was that the fallacy fallacy?

  10. Victoria says:

    I just find it interesting how many if the examples had an obvious slant to them. That in itself seems like it should be classified as a logic fallacy: the fallacy of rather than argue your opinions you’ll just assume them to be true and accepted by all except for the few idiots running around. I’ll gladly engage in a reasonable discussion, but one that has been so obviously set up in favor of one side is definitely a loaded question fallacy: anyone here arguing for Intelligent Design, against same sex marriage, against vaccines, or for the Bible (oh, I’m sorry, I mean the book of Zorbo) is already labeled as a foolish person without any sort of debate, proof, or reasoning to back that label up. The logic fallacies themselves are obviously correct and are present often in arguments today–I was just hoping that these posters wouldn’t have to personally use one or two of these logic flaws in order to show us how widely they are used.

    1. Marci says:

      I didn’t see it that way at all. I saw it as them picking hot button issues that people could understand or relate to. Just because the side the decided to argue for is against some peoples opinions doesn’t make it slanted. No matter which side of an issue is presented, SOMEBODY is going to feel attacked.

      1. Victoria says:

        If they were really ONLY trying to pick issues we could relate to, it seems as though they would have alternated between liberal/conservative, religious/non-religious, evolution/intelligent design etc. at least a few times.

        However, if they chose their opinions in order to show the logic behind and spread their belief system (which I have no problem with), they failed in doing it according to the rules of logic. On multiple posters (if you go to the full website) people who believe in intelligent design are set up as illogical and even idiotic people, but there is no evidence or reasoning to support that claim. That is definitely not a fair fight.

        If during a debate either side has the advantage of proclaiming that their opponent is dumb as a rock before that opponent opens their mouth, the rules have been broken and the quest for truth is disbanded.

  11. Tristan says:

    Very interesting bits for looking into what a good debate is. Although, the examples were definitely written by someone coming from a post-modern, athiest slant haha. Nonetheless interesting though. That book of zorbo sounds pretty intense but I’ll stick with my Bible.

    Also interesting to look at these in light of political parties and how they try to shut down the other parties running against them. I’m so sick of political parties putting horrible slants on others to make them look bad. Instead, tell me why I should vote for you. You just told me that the other guy isn’t trustworthy, so how do I know you are. Are you trustworthy simply by the fact that the other guy isn’t? No, let me find out who you are. In other words stop the mud-slinging…

  12. Terry says:

    I don’t disagree with any of the implied points here. That said, a lot of these examples are taking very thinly-veiled shots at topics like theism. Your points can be made without being unnecessarily inflammatory and alienating half of your audience. Just food for thought.

  13. Jasmine says:

    I have to say that the offence taken from this article is quite revealing. Straw Man is being used by some misrepresenting this article as if it has some how tried to make those of religious beliefs seem stupid or irrational. Therefor they try to disprove the entire basis of this article by expressing the offence they took from the examples. They are simply examples to further explain the fallacies. Not saying that the argument is wrong but simply the way they try to prove it is indeed wrong. I don’t believe any disrespect was intended by this article, rather a way of showing how to have more respect while arguing is how I myself took it.

    1. laughinguncontrollably says:

      Jasmine, no offense but I would guess that your beliefs somewhat align with the authors, so its easy for you to take the points Ina matter of fact way. Consider the shoe is on the other foot and the author used the following example for “begging the question”: We know the earth is billions of years old because the scientific consensus is that it is, and dating methods prove it is, and those dating methods are accurate because scientists say they are, and the scientific consensus can’t be wrong.

  14. Steve D says:

    +100 for being one of the only people I have ever seen use “begging the question” correctly. It does NOT mean “inspire” or “raise” a question. Another one, more a rhetorical than logical fallacy, is to say “I find that argument offensive.” Well, so what? Take it to your shrink. Being offended very likely means there’s something wrong with you, not the argument.

  15. carsonite says:

    To say there is no God is to know all; then you would be God therefore proving yourself wrong. But you can’t be wrong if you are God because God knows all and can’t be wrong.

    OK smarties, kill me… :)

  16. SpudsMcKinzie says:

    They forgot the most common logical fallacy; “Ad Verecundiam” Or appeal to authority. EXAMPLE: The Department of Counter Defense Security claim that there is a rise in dangerous threat alert level from yellow to orange that can only be remedied with more tax money funding to get it to a more manageable green level.

    1. Chris says:

      They didn’t forget them. Abraham just chose a selection to demonstrate. He states that there are 24 fallacies on the website but only shows 11 here. Don’t worry! Your fallacy is out there!

  17. Don says:

    This article and commentator are trying to drive their points of belief by this “11 ways you are thoroughly (but interestingly) wrong”. This is one of those attempts, since I am scientific, then you are stupid for believing x, x, and z. Scientist are some the most disillusioned people I know and I consider myself one of them.

  18. Jay McHue says:

    Zorbo the Great and his Infallible Book of Blahblahblah, huh? You know, sometimes it’s not worth the effort to be half-assedly subtle and definitely not the least bit clever when it’s clear exactly to who or what you are referring.

  19. Susan Rose says:

    Your examples are biased toward left-wing beliefs. Thereby you are using straw man fallacies against conservatives.

  20. Sam says:

    I’m an atheist. I’m also a scientist. I get arguments all the time from agnostics that tell me, “How can you KNOW there’s no god? There’s no proof there is – but there’s no proof there’s not, so you HAVE to be agnostic!”

    No, I don’t.

    Scientists, you see, make postulations and believe in theories (the true definition of theory, mind you – not the idiotic intelligent-design-&-non-scientific definition). They hold those theories to be TRUE UNTIL DISPROVEN.

    SO – I don’t believe in god because there’s no evidence he/it exists. IF – as a scientist – there was actual, definable, palpable, provable proof of god, then – I’d have to change my outlook. Does that mean I “HAVE” to be an agnostic, then? NO! Because I don’t believe in god right now, and quite frankly, find it easier to believe in the existence of unicorns (pink, invisible or whatever color) than to believe in the existence of your pathetic delusional deities. At least unicorns are possible.

  21. lisica says:

    I just found it ironic that with several of the examples, the author subliminally dissed Christianity.
    I thought the point of the argument was to not present a biased approach?

  22. lisica says:

    actually, it wasn’t specifically Christianity. I think it could have related to any religion.
    Interesting read, and good examples (for the most part.)

  23. laughinguncontrollably says:

    Does no one find it interesting that an article on fallacy led to a fight about evolution/creation, almost immediately? I couldn’t help but notice that the author of these fallacy examples is both very creative and a liberal atheist, or perhaps an agnostic Darwinist, or maybe a theistic evolutionist, no…I think that one is ruled out in “begging the question”. Personal incredulity example uses the straw man in its example. You know that’s funny, stop thinking about your argument and just appreciate the irony of human intelligence

  24. Nate says:

    Great definition of a few common fallacies for people that need pictures to read something (lol). In all seriousness, I’m glad some people are away of fallacies. If you added “ad populum” and “red herring” and re-posted it during presidential campaigns, 22 words would be my new favorite site. Cheers!

  25. Greg says:

    They forgot about the one major fallacy: arguing about religion. It is pointless, and does anyone ever change their position after a debate with someone on this subject?

  26. Harlowe Thrombey says:

    People that engage in these fallacies while arguing are nothing but stupid pricks, for putting logic aside and their selfish whims first.

Leave a Reply