FAQs about reasoning

Is a slippery slope argument always a fallacy?

Not all slippery slope arguments are fallacious.

• Fallacious slippery slope arguments overstate the certainty of the negative outcome and typically don’t provide adequate evidence.
• Non-fallacious slippery slope arguments acknowledge a series of logically connected steps leading from one event to another, with each step being reasonable and supported by evidence.

Read this FAQ: Is a slippery slope argument always a fallacy?

What are common types of fallacies in research?

Common types of fallacies, or errors in reasoning, that are found in research include the following:

• Correlation/causation fallacy: The mistaken assumption that a correlation (e.g., two events happening at the same time) implies a cause-and-effect relationship
• Ecological fallacy: Drawing conclusions about an individual’s characteristics by relying on collective data for a group
• The base-rate fallacy: Overlooking important statistical data, like the general frequency of an event, and focusing on less significant details, such as an isolated case
• Hasty generalization fallacy: Drawing broad conclusions based on insufficient or biased evidence
• Straw man fallacy: Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack
• False dilemma fallacy: Presenting only two options as if they were the only possibilities

Read this FAQ: What are common types of fallacies in research?

What is the difference between the sunk cost fallacy and escalation of commitment?

The sunk cost fallacy can lead to an escalation of commitment (or commitment bias).

• The sunk cost fallacy is the mistake of remaining committed to a past decision based on the misconception that the costs already incurred can be recovered.
• An escalation of commitment is the act of increasing the resources or conviction invested in a failed course of action.

An escalation of commitment stems from fallacious sunk cost reasoning and entails committing even more time, money, effort, emotions, or conviction to a failed decision in a futile attempt to recover what has been lost.

Read this FAQ: What is the difference between the sunk cost fallacy and escalation of commitment?

Is an ad hominem a logical fallacy?

Ad hominem is the informal logical fallacy of attacking a person instead of refuting an argument. Based on the Latin “to the person,” ad hominems focus on irrelevant criticisms of an individual rather than making a good-faith rebuttal.

Name-calling is one common form of ad hominem fallacy. It’s used to dismiss an argument by simply ridiculing the individual presenting it (e.g., “Now that we’ve heard the bleeding-heart proposals from my naive young colleague, let’s move on to discussing realistic solutions”).

Read this FAQ: Is an ad hominem a logical fallacy?

Is an appeal to ignorance a logical fallacy?

Yes, an appeal to ignorance is a type of logical fallacy. It involves asserting that because something hasn’t been proven true, it must be false, or because something hasn’t been proven false, it must be true (e.g., “Scientists can’t prove that the Egyptian pyramids don’t have extraterrestrial origins”).

There is an aphorism that is often used to counter arguments from ignorance: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

A similar mistake is the burden of proof fallacy, which occurs when someone makes a claim but doesn’t offer evidence, instead claiming that others must disprove it (e.g., “There’s a secret society manipulating world governments. Prove me wrong”).

Read this FAQ: Is an appeal to ignorance a logical fallacy?

What is the difference between cognitive biases and logical fallacies?

Cognitive biases describe flawed thought processes, whereas logical fallacies describe errors in argumentation.

A cognitive bias describes a common error in judgment. Examples of cognitive biases include confirmation bias (i.e., the tendency to seek out information that confirms one’s beliefs) and the halo effect (i.e., the tendency to assume that someone who exhibits one positive attribute, such as beauty, also has another positive attribute, such as honesty).

A logical fallacy is a type of flawed argument. Many logical fallacies either result from or intentionally appeal to cognitive biases.

Read this FAQ: What is the difference between cognitive biases and logical fallacies?

What’s the difference between tu quoque fallacies and whataboutism?

The tu quoque fallacy and whataboutism sometimes overlap, but they have distinct characteristics.

• Tu quoque is a form of ad hominem argument that counters criticism by pointing out hypocrisy in the critic’s behavior. It effectively says, “You do the same thing you’re criticizing me for.”
• Whataboutism is a broader tactic that involves responding to an accusation by deflecting to a different issue or making a counter-accusation. It shifts focus by essentially saying, “What about this other thing?”

Both are typically considered informal logical fallacies or specious approaches to argumentation.

Read this FAQ: What’s the difference between tu quoque fallacies and whataboutism?

What’s the difference between the tu quoque fallacy and the ad hominem fallacy?

The tu quoque fallacy is a specific kind of ad hominem fallacy.

• Ad hominem fallacies criticize a person for something irrelevant to the topic at hand.
• Tu quoque fallacies specifically criticize the person posing a question, criticism, or argument with an accusation of hypocrisy.

Both belong to the category of fallacies of relevance, also known as red herring fallacies.

Read this FAQ: What’s the difference between the tu quoque fallacy and the ad hominem fallacy?

What’s the correct pronunciation of tu quoque?

The logical fallacy “tu quoque” is pronounced /ˈtuː ˈkwoʊkwiː/ (too-kwoh-kwee).

Other accepted pronunciations include the following:

• /ˈtyuː ˈkwoʊkwiː/ (tyoo-kwoh-kwee)
• /ˈtuː ˈkoʊkwiː/ (too-koh-kwee)

Read this FAQ: What’s the correct pronunciation of tu quoque?

What is an example of post hoc fallacy?

The following scenario is an example of the post hoc fallacy:

A country introduces new environmental regulations. Shortly afterward, there is a downturn in the economy. Some politicians argue that the new regulations caused the economic decline, neglecting other global economic factors at play.

The argument is fallacious because it assumes that the order of events is sufficient to prove causation. Although it’s possible that the regulations affected the economy, they can’t be assumed to be the main or sole cause of the economic downturn without further evidence.

Read this FAQ: What is an example of post hoc fallacy?