Monthly Archives: February 2013

Definist Fallacy (circular definition)– involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.  Refutation:  definitions must be clear and objective; circular definitions are neither. Example: Diving Being = a being with godlike qualities.  God = … Continue reading →

The Lottery Fallacy – Because the odds are against something happening, therefore it will not happen. Refutation: Seemingly improbable events do happen. Examples: People win the lottery twice, have three children years apart with the same birth date, or bump … Continue reading →

Argument from adverse consequences: because a negative event occurred, therefore specific person or group must be responsible and they must be punished. Refutation: the severity of negative events does not reduce the need to prove the cause(s) of the event. … Continue reading →

Ignoring a Common Cause: when one concludes that one thing causes another simply because they are regularly associated. Refutation: Causation needs to be established by proof, not by association. Example – Aaron: “Bethany, the rate of theft in Iraq is … Continue reading →

The Relativist Fallacy: when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her. Refutation: truth is truth. Claiming something is true for one but not another is what one … Continue reading →

Proving Non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn’t exist. Refutation: the burden of proof is one the one making the claim of existence. Examples: asking to prove … Continue reading →

Proof of Love Fallacy: asserting that if the other person does not do a certain activity, that person must not truly love them. Refutation: Love is a commitment to do what is best for the other person, not what the … Continue reading →

Tu quoque (“you too”, appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position. Refutation: Valid arguments are valid … Continue reading →

Black Swan Blindness – the argument that ignores low probability, high impact events, thus down playing the role of chance and under-representing known risks. Refutation: Unless you are speaking of generalizations, all probabilities need to be a part of the … Continue reading →

Meaningless / Self Defeating Questions: Questions that are semantically vague, logically self-defeating, or would require a committing a category error to answer.  Refutation: These questions do not need to be answered. They need to be re-asked or ignored.  Examples: “How … Continue reading →