A fallacy is an error in reasoning, created either unintentionally during a debate or argument, or sometimes intentionally in order to deceive someone. They are good to know as we spend more and more time arguing with strangers on the internet, it is more than likely tat you have been guilty of one of these common fallacies at some stage!
With truth becoming an increasingly elusive concept in these days of fake news, denial of science and appeal to partisan emotions over logic, being able to spot these fallacies is also an important skill to have. Logan Murphy, from San Francisco, has helpfully compiled a list of the most common fallacies, in easily digestible and humorous illustrations. “They took a bit to make but it was a fun project,” he told Bored Panda. “I was hoping to hit the sweet spot between humor and truth.”
Logan, who has an associate's degree in philosophy, says his inspiration for the illustrations came from working in customer service. “Customers use them a lot in an attempt to get things,” he explained. “I’m never able to call them on what they are doing, so this started out as me venting!”
Scroll down below to check out Logan's educational and amusing illustrations for yourself, and let us know what you think in the comments!
Image credits: Slippysilverpanda
This post may include affiliate links.
This is the exact description of Religion. And the right to have guns in the US.
And this, in a nutshell, is why people believe in a flat Earth...
Stick Plane crashed, 0 Survivors, 377 sticks died! Search for Stick Box under way!
Arguing with religious people in a nutshell. People used to believe that gods lived on high mountains, under the earth and in other places we hadn't gotten to yet, then we explored those places and didn't find gods, so it turns out the gods were in the sky the whole time, but then we went into space and there were no such creatures there, so it turns out they ACTUALLY always lived on a different plane of reality and you can never go there to get evidence that they exist.
This should probably be rephrased, as some "personal experience" can disprove certain types of argument. Take the classical proposition from several centuries ago that all swans were white. It only took one black swan to disprove that hypothesis - if the refuter had seen and evidenced that sighting, the original argument is lost. The issue here is confabulating "opinion" with "experience" - another logical fallacy, as it happens...
Mostly Religous apologists, Flat Earthers and Creationists use all those tactics because they cannot support their asinine, moronic claims with any scientific fact.
Wasn't it Paul Merton who did a bit about this (ca. 1991 - 1993)? "So you don't like toast, hm? What do you want to eat? HUMAN EXCREMENTS?"
"If abortion gets regulated, all women will abort their babies and soon humanity will go extinct! Won't someone think of the children?! :( "
I usually end up with some form of this when I ask Christians "Why did Jesus have to die for God to forgive us?" So far I haven't heard a good explanation. (Yes, there's "he was perfect and paid in blood sacrifice for the whole Adam and Eve debacle" but if God's plan was to forgive people, why didn't he just do it WITHOUT killing Jesus. Ugh, even without all that we're starting on the false premise of the Adam and Eve story being true, which is just immense levels of ridiculous.)
It’s not only about inanimate objects but people’s feelings, as well. "You’ve hurt my feelings" or "this offends me" are on the same level. Someone is offended, so what? It doesn’t give them any rights. Hurt emotions are a part of life, but if people can’t control their own emotions they often start trying to control other people’s behavior. At this point any discussion turns pathetic.
This isn't entirely accurate. According to Wikipedia, which provides a good definition: "The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error.” The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive."
There's a deep difference between an "expert" and an expert, that's the root of all the anti-scientific movements.
Right, like using Dr Ruth to prove that heart disease is caused by woodworking when she is an expert in sexual relations, not heart disease
Load More Replies...
This is not a fallacy. Basically every scientific discussion appeals to authority (in this case, the scientific consensus). And every single person who is _not_ an expert uses such arguments.
Correct. The question is whether the expert is, in fact, an expert. If the expert appealed to is the world's foremost authority on the subject then this is not a fallacy. And, as you point out, those who are not experts would be required to never state anything if they were not allowed to appeal to actual experts.
Load More Replies...
But sometimes the expert actually has extensive and specific knowledge of the subject. That is why they are considered an expert. Why would you not defer to their expertise on a complex subject?
One big issue is that there are people out there that are equally qualified, but have differing opinions. When I ask about this. Bandwagon is used a lot.
Ohh... so they mean an Expert who is... not... really truly... an expert. ie: "I know all about cars 'cuz I watch Youtube a whole lot and I'm an EXPERT Mechanic!! I fixed my grandma's scooter once. And changed a tire THREE times..." ... Meanwhile... the certified Mechanic who went to trade school, got the certification after the gruelling process then worked in the industry for several decades, had their work constantly scrutinized by a governing body (health, safety, accident prevention etc) as per regulations... gives "expert mechanic" a bit of side eye...
This seems a little more like anti-intellectualism. If a group of experts studying something for a very long time agree on something then why should your opinion hold equal weight? This is what fuels the "global warming isn't real" or "vaccines cause autism" arguments. They think their opinion is as good as those people that actually spend their lives studying these things. And, sometimes there are leading experts on a field. I wouldn't say my opinion on ancient Egypt is anywhere near as valid as the theories of Dr. Zahi Hawass. Sometimes people just need to learn to shut up and listen as much as it hurts their egos.
This is classic for the co2 religion. Nobody, not even physicists or other PHD's gets to have any opinion, because they are not climate scientists or experts on the subject. Nota bene - all the "climate scientists" has their education elsewhere, as there are no PHD's in "climate science". Self-fulfilling fallacy where the referrer refers to a "climate science expert" who can not be an expert due to the same logic, as (s)he does not have a degree in "climate science", simply because, there are no such degrees...
Long History of 'so-called' experts predicting the end of the earth - Global Nuclear Freeze / Disarmament (Gone - Reagon won the cold war.). Rain Forests all destroyed? Were they all saved? Global Warming under Al "carbon burning" jet flying - huge ungreen mansion - still waiting for the end of the world despite his proven flawed facts from his first movie predicting the end 20 years ago - we should be underwater now - and the polar bears all dead.
Yup. Just because someone is a d**k, doesn't mean they can't point it out when you're being one. Being a d**k doesn't automatically make them wrong, just a hypocrite.
I don't get this one. If an argument contained a fallacy (even if the one using it doesn't know it) then, the reasoning is likely to be unsound. Depending of the fallacy of course
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person"
‘Arguing with a stupid person is a bit like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter who won the stupid bird will still s**t all over the board and strut around like it won anyway’. That’s not the exact quote but it was something like that.
Load More Replies...
I also like, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."
Load More Replies...
I don’t see the point in this. If you start with “I have an opinion”, any stupid or illogical reply is OK, because opinions are like a-holes. It would be different if we were talking about facts or theories or logical arguments. But when you’re just voicing your opinion, any answer is legit.
I know someone who uses all of these as excuses in arguments. It's exhausting.
A couple months ago me and a few other people from a community I'm in had a...heated discussion, with someone who absolutely hated us for some reason, from this list he was using, Ad hominem, Bulverism, Circular reasoning, Moral high ground, Moving the goalposts, and Reductio ad hitlerum. It was the most frustrating thing because you give actual points only to get "well that doesn't matter because you're nazis." "What? How are we nazis?" "Lol You're nazis because I know you are."
I too.This are easily misused in the internet. People often wrongly call out others for using these fallacies. The most popular one being the strawman, a person can call out other for using it and say "No, I did not meant that" and post a comment explaining what he said, completely different from his original argument.
Load More Replies...
Well, this is horrible. These so called 'logical fallacies' are the weapon of internet arguers. No, not using them, but calling out others for using them. Internet arguers very commonly call out others for a logical fallacy, often wrongly. The obviously correct one of these is Ad Hominem(so common it does not even feel wrong, but a part of a debate). Both sides label each other for cherry picking in almost every argument I have seen. , both sides label each other for using 'strawman' arguments, it is the second most popular one for internet arguers after the cherry picking label. Like person A posted an argument, person B posted an answer, person A posted another comment explaining what he had *actually* said, writing a comment that does not even sound like his original argument and calls out person B for using strawman arguments.
There are many such examples of false strawman fallacy labelling. Sometimes some arguments clearly seem directed at something, and if a person writes even a word about it, kids instantly scream '*STRAWMAN!!'* on Reddit. Just because a person is trying to work his way around something cleverly like in the line I just wrote, or can not present his argument properly, and somebody calls it out does not means that our person B is wrong, it means that Person A is wrong. Even so, if somebody actually misunderstands a comments, personal attacks begin instead of a proper correction, not like in the original post. Such is the case with many of these. Internet arguers weaponize everything, both logical fallacies and calling out others for them.
Load More Replies...
I am fascinated how many people were able to push in anti-Trump and anti-gun libtard vomit under these pictures. Other than that, nice article with summary of various argumentation types.
People use these to espouse anti-Trump arguments for the simple reason that Trump and his sycophants employ these fallacies constantly.
Load More Replies...
'Something' outside the creation give signs to whom inside the creation to believe and obey 'him' for the sake of creation itself. But who believer often miss understood 'who' outside is and what 'who outside' intended. Make it a confusion and chaos. They forget that "who outside" (not actually outside as our limited knowing) is loving and merciful. Its up to you to believe or not. As 'who outside' said, there are no coercion to believe, everything is only for your own goodness O who want to use rationality. Because, in my opinion, 'he' create and define the Law of Causality in 'his' creation, and don't let us lose because we don't know or believe. As a material for thought, isn't it difficult to find justice in the world, then how can justice be fulfilled if no one has absolute justice? And many things that are similar (beyond our capability) make us look for who is the absolute one.
I don't consider opinions as right or wrong, but facts as correct or incorrect. In fact when I can't get ideots to shut up about their stupid points, I just add "well that's your opinion though", and it drives them made 😎
Another good reply is "ok, you are right and I have peace and quiet".
Load More Replies...
and 90% of the time in an online argument ended with the losing side cursing the other person and claim him/herself to be holier than thou.
I have just undergone personal incrudility and cherry picking in an argument. Now I like a good debate but you are essentially not responding to the topic and running here and there and then telling the other person how wrong they are. I mean what the f**k dude.
Where's the evergrowing "but it hurts my/his/her/theirs feelings just by existing therefore it's bad"? Did I miss it somewhere?
associate's degree in philosophy - I think you need to continue to study both psychology and english because I find many of these lacking in both.
Okay... so... how ARE you supposed to deal with these people? Only highlighting the problem, and not offering a solution isn't going to help anything.
You do not deal with these people, you accept that you will not change them and you move on.
Load More Replies... DOOOO YOOOOOU HAVE AN OPINOOOOOOON? A mind of your own.... ♬♪ (sorry, I had to ♥)
"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person"
‘Arguing with a stupid person is a bit like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter who won the stupid bird will still s**t all over the board and strut around like it won anyway’. That’s not the exact quote but it was something like that.
Load More Replies... I also like, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."
Load More Replies... I don’t see the point in this. If you start with “I have an opinion”, any stupid or illogical reply is OK, because opinions are like a-holes. It would be different if we were talking about facts or theories or logical arguments. But when you’re just voicing your opinion, any answer is legit.
I know someone who uses all of these as excuses in arguments. It's exhausting.
A couple months ago me and a few other people from a community I'm in had a...heated discussion, with someone who absolutely hated us for some reason, from this list he was using, Ad hominem, Bulverism, Circular reasoning, Moral high ground, Moving the goalposts, and Reductio ad hitlerum. It was the most frustrating thing because you give actual points only to get "well that doesn't matter because you're nazis." "What? How are we nazis?" "Lol You're nazis because I know you are."
I too.This are easily misused in the internet. People often wrongly call out others for using these fallacies. The most popular one being the strawman, a person can call out other for using it and say "No, I did not meant that" and post a comment explaining what he said, completely different from his original argument.
Load More Replies... Well, this is horrible. These so called 'logical fallacies' are the weapon of internet arguers. No, not using them, but calling out others for using them. Internet arguers very commonly call out others for a logical fallacy, often wrongly. The obviously correct one of these is Ad Hominem(so common it does not even feel wrong, but a part of a debate). Both sides label each other for cherry picking in almost every argument I have seen. , both sides label each other for using 'strawman' arguments, it is the second most popular one for internet arguers after the cherry picking label. Like person A posted an argument, person B posted an answer, person A posted another comment explaining what he had *actually* said, writing a comment that does not even sound like his original argument and calls out person B for using strawman arguments.
There are many such examples of false strawman fallacy labelling. Sometimes some arguments clearly seem directed at something, and if a person writes even a word about it, kids instantly scream '*STRAWMAN!!'* on Reddit. Just because a person is trying to work his way around something cleverly like in the line I just wrote, or can not present his argument properly, and somebody calls it out does not means that our person B is wrong, it means that Person A is wrong. Even so, if somebody actually misunderstands a comments, personal attacks begin instead of a proper correction, not like in the original post. Such is the case with many of these. Internet arguers weaponize everything, both logical fallacies and calling out others for them.
Load More Replies... I am fascinated how many people were able to push in anti-Trump and anti-gun libtard vomit under these pictures. Other than that, nice article with summary of various argumentation types.
People use these to espouse anti-Trump arguments for the simple reason that Trump and his sycophants employ these fallacies constantly.
Load More Replies... 'Something' outside the creation give signs to whom inside the creation to believe and obey 'him' for the sake of creation itself. But who believer often miss understood 'who' outside is and what 'who outside' intended. Make it a confusion and chaos. They forget that "who outside" (not actually outside as our limited knowing) is loving and merciful. Its up to you to believe or not. As 'who outside' said, there are no coercion to believe, everything is only for your own goodness O who want to use rationality. Because, in my opinion, 'he' create and define the Law of Causality in 'his' creation, and don't let us lose because we don't know or believe. As a material for thought, isn't it difficult to find justice in the world, then how can justice be fulfilled if no one has absolute justice? And many things that are similar (beyond our capability) make us look for who is the absolute one.
I don't consider opinions as right or wrong, but facts as correct or incorrect. In fact when I can't get ideots to shut up about their stupid points, I just add "well that's your opinion though", and it drives them made 😎
Another good reply is "ok, you are right and I have peace and quiet".
Load More Replies... and 90% of the time in an online argument ended with the losing side cursing the other person and claim him/herself to be holier than thou.
I have just undergone personal incrudility and cherry picking in an argument. Now I like a good debate but you are essentially not responding to the topic and running here and there and then telling the other person how wrong they are. I mean what the f**k dude.
Where's the evergrowing "but it hurts my/his/her/theirs feelings just by existing therefore it's bad"? Did I miss it somewhere?
associate's degree in philosophy - I think you need to continue to study both psychology and english because I find many of these lacking in both.
Okay... so... how ARE you supposed to deal with these people? Only highlighting the problem, and not offering a solution isn't going to help anything.
You do not deal with these people, you accept that you will not change them and you move on.
Load More Replies... DOOOO YOOOOOU HAVE AN OPINOOOOOOON? A mind of your own.... ♬♪ (sorry, I had to ♥)
