Logical Fallacies - Top 150
1. The A Priori Argument (also, Rationalization; Dogmatism, Proof Texting.) -
A corrupt argument from logos,starting with a given, pre-set belief, dogma,
doctrine, scripture verse, "fact" or conclusion and then searching for any reasonable or
reasonable-sounding argument to rationalize, defend or justify it. Certain ideologues and
religious fundamentalists are proud to use this fallacy as their primary method of "reasoning"
and some are even honest enough to say so. E.g., since we know there is no such thing as
"evolution," a prime duty of believers is to look for ways to explain away growing evidence,
such as is found in DNA, that might suggest otherwise. See also the Argument from
Ignorance. The opposite of this fallacy is the Taboo.
2. Ableism (also, The Con Artist's Fallacy; The Dacoit's Fallacy; Shearing the Sheeple;
Profiteering; "Vulture Capitalism," "Wealth is disease, and I am the cure.") -
A corrupt argument from ethos, arguing that because someone is intellectually
slower, physically or emotionally less capable, less ambitious, less aggressive, older or less
healthy (or simply more trusting or less lucky) than others, s/he "naturally" deserves less in
life and may be freely victimized by those who are luckier, quicker, younger, stronger,
healthier, greedier, more powerful, less moral or more gifted (or who simply have more
immediate felt need for money, often involving some form of addiction). This fallacy is a
"softer" argumentum ad baculum. When challenged, those who practice this fallacy seem to
most often shrug their shoulders and mumble "Life is ruff and you gotta be tuff [sic]," "You
gotta do what you gotta do to get ahead in this world," "It's no skin off my nose," "That's free
enterprise," "That's the way life is!" or similar.
3. Actions have Consequences -
The contemporary fallacy of a person in power falsely describing an imposed
punishment or penalty as a "consequence" of another's negative act. E.g.," The consequences
of your misbehavior could include suspension or expulsion." A corrupt argument from ethos,
arrogating to oneself or to one's rules or laws an ethos of cosmic inevitability, i.e., the ethos
of God, Fate, Karma, Destiny or Reality Itself. Illness or food poisoning are likely
"consequences" of eating spoiled food, while being "grounded" is a punishment for, not a
"consequence," of childhood misbehavior. Freezing to death is a natural "consequence" of
going out naked in subzero weather but going to prison is a punishment for bank robbery, not
a natural, inevitable or unavoidable "consequence," of robbing a bank. Not to be confused
with the Argument from Consequences, which is quite different. See also Blaming the
Victim. An opposite fallacy is that of Moral Licensing.
4. The Ad Hominem Argument (also, "Personal attack," "Poisoning the well") -
The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition's
intelligence, morals, education, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation,
using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "That so-called judge;" or "He's so evil
that you can't believe anything he says." See also "Guilt by Association." The opposite of this
is the "Star Power" fallacy. Another obverse of Ad Hominem is the Token Endorsement
Fallacy, where, in the words of scholar Lara Bhasin, "Individual A has been accused of anti-
Semitism, but Individual B is Jewish and says Individual A is not anti-Semitic, and the
implication of course is that we can believe Individual B because, being Jewish, he has
special knowledge of anti- Semitism. Or, a presidential candidate is accused of anti-Muslim
1 | P a g e
