Informal fallacy Informal fallacies — arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural formal flaws and usually require examination of the argument's content. Equivocation — the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.
Equivocation — the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.
See also the if-by-whiskey fallacy, below. Ecological fallacy — inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.
Related to the appeal to authority not always fallacious. Material fallacies dilemma false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, Material fallacies fallacy — two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options when in reality there are more.
Historical fallacy — a set of considerations is thought to hold good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process.
Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little Material fallacies, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking as different but the same.
Incomplete comparison — insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison. Inconsistent comparison — different methods of comparison are used, leaving a false impression of the whole comparison.
Intentionality fallacy — the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated e.
Mind projection fallacy — subjective judgments are "projected" to be inherent properties of an object, rather than being related to personal perceptions of that object.
Moralistic fallacy — inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact—value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.
Moving the goalposts raising the bar — argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other often greater evidence is demanded. Nirvana fallacy perfect-solution fallacy — solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Onus probandi — from the Latin onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim. It is a particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
Also known as " shifting the burden of proof ". Proving too much — using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used to reach an additional, invalid conclusion. Referential fallacy  — assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how they are used.
Reification concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness — a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction abstract belief or hypothetical construct is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something that is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Retrospective determinism — the argument that because an event has occurred under some circumstance, the circumstance must have made its occurrence inevitable.
Special pleading — a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
Begging the question petitio principii — providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise. For example, an organic foods advertisement that says "Organic foods are safe and healthy foods grown without any pesticides, herbicides, or other unhealthy additives.
Fallacy of many questions complex question, fallacy of presuppositions, loaded question, plurium interrogationum — someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.
Faulty generalizations[ edit ] Faulty generalization — reach a conclusion from weak premises.
Seen and Heard. What made you want to look up material fallacy?Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible). material fallacy. material implication. materialise. materialism. Statistics for material fallacy. Look-up Popularity. Comments on material fallacy. What made you want to look up material fallacy? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible). Show Comments Hide Comments. Material Fallacies 1 Introduction. A fallacy is an error in an argument that makes the argument unacceptable. Fallacies of Irrelevant Evidence. These fallacies involve the .
Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.
Accident — an exception to a generalization is ignored. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it. Misleading vividness — involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem; this also relies on the appeal to emotion fallacy.
Overwhelming exception — an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.Material fallacies They are mistakes concerning what terms mean and how they are used or the content of an argument.
They are made in the first act of the mind. Fallacies that arise from making "snap" judgments on "metaphysics," those issues of philosophy that cannot be entirely resolved by logical argumentation. Reductionism The mistaken assumption that all metaphysical issues can be reduced to matter, chemicals, physical processes, etc.
In turn, material fallacies may be placed into the more general category of informal fallacies, while formal fallacies may be clearly placed into the more precise category of logical (deductive) fallacies. Groups 2 and 3 are called logical fallacies, or fallacies “in discourse,” in contrast to the substantive, or material, fallacies of group 1, called fallacies “in matter”; and groups 1 and 2, in contrast to group 3, are called informal fallacies.
Material fallacy. A fallacy is a component of an argument that is demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument invalid (except in the case of begging the question) in whole. In logical arguments, fallacies are either formal or informal. A material fallacy is a type of informal fallacy relating to problems with the facts (the matter) of the argument.
Material fallacies can further be classified into two subcategories: Fallacies of evidence, which refer to arguments that do not provide the required evidence for the conclusions drawn, and fallacies of relevance, which refer to .