Today's Logical Fallacy is... Diminished Responsibility!

This fallacy occurs when we argue that our behavior should be excused because of impaired judgment, e.g. telling your teacher that they should grade your exam leniently because you were hung over and “it’s not my fault.” It is a contemporary fallacy that has arisen out of the misappropriation of the American legal concept, “diminished capacity” (that punishment for criminal acts should be decreased if the criminal’s judgment was impaired and thus would not have committed the crime under normal conditions). While being drunk may mean that you aren’t charged with first degree murder, it doesn’t mean that you are free of guilt or can’t be charged with second degree murder, and it doesn’t make the consequences of your actions any less severe. Likewise, the fact that you were hungover doesn’t somehow make your answers to your test less incorrect, and you must still live with the consequences of failing; your poor judgment in getting drunk the night before the test doesn’t excuse your performance.

Today's Logical Fallacy is...Appeal to Spite!

This fallacy occurs when someone uses existing spiteful and bitter feelings in order to dismiss an opponent’s position. Instead of actually evaluating evidence for the opponent’s position, they are exploiting the emotions of those listening in order convince them. We do this to ourselves if we justify disagreeing with someone out of existing spite instead of examining the issues. This is especially useful when combined with stereotypes (the overgeneralization fallacy) toward a particular demographic. For example, saying that you can never vote for a career politician because they are all untrustworthy combines stereotyping (all politicians are untrustworthy) with the appeal for spite (a general dislike for politicians).

Today's Logical Fallacy is...There Is No Alternative!

(TINA , Get Over It, the fait accompli, Taboo, I wish I had a magic wand.)

An extension of the false dichotomy, this fallacy occurs when someone states that a position must be taken because there are no other realistic alternatives, that all other options are irrelevant, or that since a decision has been made, there’s no going back. While it may be that the position being supported is the best position, outright dismissing other alternatives suppresses critical thinking. It relies on the acceptance of the inevitable (regardless of whether or not it is inevitable) by suggesting that we are powerless to do otherwise.

Today's Logical Fallacy is...Tautology!

A tautology is a statement that – by it’s construction - must always be true. It uses circular reasoning in that it’s conclusion is its own premise. While this type of logic can be easy to spot (“the Bible is the Word of God because it says so in the Bible”), it can be deceptive, especially when you’re presented with terms with which you are unfamiliar (“therapeutic touch works because it manipulates life force” – the definition of “therapeutic touch” is the alleged manipulation of life force, so it’s like saying that breathing keeps you alive because it exchanges carbon dioxide for oxygen). (Note: Definitions and mathematical proofs are not “arguments,” so while they meet the qualifications to be called tautologies, they aren’t tautological fallacies.) Tautologies appear to be explanations but actually provide no useful information. They are also unfalsifiable since they are entirely dependent on their own premise.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Sending the Wrong Message!

This fallacy argues that a statement or action is wrong because it will “send the wrong message,” regardless of how correct, important, or true that statement or action is. The message that is, in fact, being sent is that their position is both fraudulent and fragile that it can be destroyed by truth. If your control of a population is based on the fear of them knowing the truth, you have no real control - nor should you.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Reductionism!

(causal reductionism, complex cause, fallacy of the single cause, causal oversimplification, reduction fallacy)

The fallacy occurs when an explanation of an event is assumed to be a single, simple cause when it may have had multiple causes. The cause is oversimplified, preventing a more in-depth analysis, often in order to deceive the listener as to the real causes. It relies on the assumption that just because something occurred before or with the event that that “something” had to cause it (related to the correlation/causation fallacy), and it is a specific kind of false dilemma in that it presents a false simplification by ignoring the influence of other causes.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Paralysis of Analysis!

(Procrastination) 

This fallacy occurs when someone claims that since we will never know everything, we should always avoid making decisions because any decision we would make would be illegitimate. Related to the appeal to ignorance fallacy, the primary difference here is that, instead of claiming that we will never “know” something due to lack of information, this fallacy claims that we should never “decide.” This fallacy is most easily committed when dealing with circumstantial evidence as it’s easier to dismiss.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Appeal to Privacy!

(Mind Your Own Business - MYOB; You're Not the Boss of Me; Taboo)      

This fallacy prohibits discussion of your own behavior or viewpoints because it is private and thus “None of your business,” regardless of how dangerous, corrupt, absurd, or offensive it is. While freedom to think and act independently is essential in a successful society, this freedom doesn’t necessarily come without consequences. Some viewpoints and behavior doesn’t necessarily end with you and can have ripple effects on others and are therefore subject to scrutiny.   

Examples:

“So what if I was driving 25 over the speed limit? It’s none of your business. You’re not a cop.” (Your right to drive doesn’t supersede the right of others to have safe roads, and if you drive recklessly, then you may lose your right to drive.)

“What I do in my own home is none of your concern.” (If what you do in your own home includes harming children or other adults, then it absolutely is someone else’s concern.)

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Hot-Hand Fallacy!

Counterpart to the gambler’s fallacy, this fallacy occurs when someone predicts the outcome of a chance event to be the same as the last event (unlike the gambler’s fallacy that predicts the opposite outcome of the last event). People tend to believe that, since inanimate objects are random, they shouldn’t show tendencies (being “hot” to a particular color or number), so any streaks are based on the performance of the person generating the results. Someone in a “losing streak” gives up because they have gone cold, and vice versa.

Examples:

“I’m on a losing streak, so I should quit while I’m a head.”

“Red is hot tonight! I know what I’m betting on.”

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Inconsistency!

(Kettle logic, internal contradiction, logical inconsistency)

This logical fallacy occurs when an individual makes contradictory claims, usually by asserting that rules are followed for some beliefs, arguments, or claims but not others. It is often done by presenting multiple contradicting arguments supporting one point, and it can vary on how obvious the contradiction is. The person making the fallacy is often unaware that they are being inconsistent; lazy thinking and emotional investment can affect their perception of this fallacy. Authority figures can often get away with this fallacy because their position often protects them from challenge.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Slothful Induction!

(poor pattern recognition, the “sticking your head in the sand” defense, “despite overwhelming evidence”) 

The opposite of the hasty generalization, this fallacy occurs when someone refuses to draw the appropriate conclusion from a clearly recognized pattern; the phrase “despite overwhelming evidence” is an indication that someone is about to commit this fallacy. Their refusal to accept what is most likely true is usually due to either their not really caring about the truth or their having a vested interest in their position (for example, cognitive dissonance occurs when someone is emotionally invested in a position and therefore likely to dismiss evidence against their position).

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Ambiguity!

(amphiboly, semantical ambiguity, type-token ambiguity, vagueness, double meaning)

This fallacy occurs when someone uses imprecise language in their argument in order to mislead the audience. Many languages include words that have multiple meanings, and when these words are used in arguments, we must be clear as to the precise definition of the word that we are using. Ambiguity is often the reason behind failed deductive reasoning. Because ambiguity is inherent to many languages, the mere presence of an ambiguous word or phrase does not automatically make it fallacious. It becomes a fallacy when it is misleading or misrepresenting the truth. This is common with politicians and psychics as a means of protection; the more vague the statement is, the less likely it will come back to hurt you. When we hear an ambiguous statement, we tend to believe the interpretation that we agree with the most.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Argument from Motives!

(Questioning Motives)

Both a type of Ad Hominem and a type of red herring, this fallacy occurs when an argument is dismissed or supported because of the motives of the one making the claim, not the actual argument itself. Just because someone appears to have questionable motives does not mean that their position is wrong, and just because appears someone has excellent motives doesn’t mean that theirs is good. Arguments must be examined based on the evidence presented, not the person presenting the evidence. Often this fallacy is used even without evidence of a questionable motive, only the mere possibility that it might exist. Too often people rely on someone’s supposed intention as evidence for their idea: a “good person” would never recommend a bad action, a “good Christian woman” would never do something mean, and an “evil atheist” would never stop and help someone on the street. This is further complicated by the fact that, while we like to believe that we can discern someone’s motivations, we rarely even understand our own motives moreover the motives of someone else (which is why we have therapists). Relying on perceived motivations as a means of rejecting or accepting an idea is rarely wise.

Today's Logical Fallacy is...Appeal to Heaven!

(Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, the Special Covenant)

An extremely dangerous fallacy, this occurs when someone argues a position because it is the “will of God,” thus claiming that God has ordered, supports, or approves of a particular position or action and that it cannot be wrong or questioned. This fallacy seems more absurd when the God or religion being invoked is not one in which the listener believes, but it is exceptionally persuasive dangerous in groups of like-minded people with similar beliefs and intents.

Today's Logical Fallacy is...Irrelevant Conclusion!

(ignoratio elenchi, Latin: “an ignoring of a refutation”)

This fallacy occurs when someone presents an argument that appears to address the issue but actually doesn’t. Those who use this fallacy subtly switch arguments from the one at hand to one closely related. For example, if you were attempting to argue the evidence that a particular person has committed a horrible crime, but instead argue that the crime that he is accused of is horrible, some may mistakenly believe that you addressed the original issue. However, whether or not the individual in question has committed the crime is still unresolved. This fallacy is easier to catch when written as opposed to spoken as many listeners are easily distracted, and it’s often paired with the bandwagon fallacy which uses the opinions of what is popular to sway listeners.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Blood is Thicker than Water!

(Favoritism, Compadrismo, "For my friends, anything," Reverse of Ad Hominem)   

The reverse of the “Ad Hominem,” this fallacy argues that a position/idea/argument must be true/good because of a particular individual who is involved. A classic example is investing in a friend’s business even though your friend may not have the skills or knowledge necessary to successful run a business. It isn’t a fallacy if the individual from whom you are basing your claim is actually qualified and you are basing your opinion on their qualifications; it’s only a fallacy when you base it on who the person is.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Name-Calling!

(personal abuse/attacks, damning the source, a variety of the Ad Hominem)

A form of the Ad Homienm (which occurs when you dismiss what an opponent says because who they are), this fallacy takes it a step further by adding insult to the dismissal. Instead of attacking their position, you attack the person, even though the person making the claim is irrelevant to the claim itself.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... False Analogy!

(apples and oranges)

This fallacy occurs when two things are incorrectly compared so as to draw a false conclusion. No two scenarios or ideas are exactly the same, nor do they so different that there is nothing similar about them. Therefore, all analogies are flawed in some way because otherwise the two objects would be identical and thus the same object. However, the mere presence of similarities does not justify equal treatment. If, in comparing two objects, we focus on superficial similarities while ignoring fundamental dissimilarities, then we are committing this fallacy.

Today's Logical Fallacy is...The Continuum Fallacy!

(Fallacy of the Beard, Line Drawing Fallacy, Bald Man Fallacy, Fallacy of the Heap, Fallacy of the Grey, the Sorites Fallacy)

This fallacy occurs when someone claims that just because a concept exists on a continuum that there really is no difference between the two ideas at the ends of the continuum. A type of equivocation fallacy (where two different things are presented as the same thing), it is often used as a means of dismissing entire positions by arguing that since not all experts agree or because there is no “100%” consensus, no valid conclusion can be drawn. This is a very common tactic used by science deniers who use outliers in data or misrepresented information as an argument against overwhelming evidence (e.g. global warming, evolution/creation, anti-vaccination) – which is also another fallacy: slothful induction.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Lying with Statistics!

(Snow Job, statistical fallacy, misunderstanding the nature of statistics [form of]; type of Half-Truth, Non Sequitur, Red Herring)

This fallacy occurs when someone deliberately supports their position using figures, numbers, and statistics that are either irrelevant or presented in a convoluted manner so as to confuse and manipulate others (different from misuse of statistics that is not deliberate). This fallacy is often mixed with other fallacies, such as overgeneralization (extrapolating to a larger group without a logical link), correlation/causation (ignoring other potential factors), and appeals to emotion.

This fallacy can appear at several stages. If the statistical test is conducted in such a way as to create a bias, such as asking loaded questions in a statistical survey, not taking random samples, or not controlling for the placebo effect, then the individual(s) conducting the study commit this fallacy. As scientific studies must be peer-reviewed and replicable, any studies that are biased are usually weeded out. Therefore, this fallacy occurs most frequently when the results of a study are then communicated to the public at large, often over-simplifying and sensationalizing the results in order to get attention. These are then further distorted by advertisers and partisan groups who then take the information to try to defend their position, often inflating, cherry-picking and distorting the actual data even further through data drudging and selectively reporting. Most people don’t recognize when this happens because the state of public statistical literacy is quite poor; human nature, based largely on intuition, is non-statistical, so most people accept studies that already agree with what they believe as opposed to forming an opinion after they have done an intensive study of it (see cognitive bias, specifically belief bias).

To guard against falling for this fallacy, demand citations for all statistical claims and check to see if the original data supports the conclusion. Avoid taking any statistical analysis by a biased party – advertisers, political groups, etc. – at face value.

Examples:

Gas prices have never been lower. When taken as a percentage of the national debt, filling up at your corner gas station is actually far cheaper today than it was in 1965!"

Did you see that bar graph in USA Today? It showed a HUGE spike in the moral decline of our country! (How do you measure morality? What is a “huge spike?” Visual representations of data can be easily manipulated.)

"Given the increasing burden of taxes on middle-class families, do you support cuts in income tax?" (as opposed to, "Considering the rising federal budget deficit and the desperate need for more revenue, do you support cuts in income tax?)

Looking at that pie chart, there is a very small percentage of people who declare themselves atheist. Therefore, atheism is not that popular of a belief. (Atheism is the lack of belief, most people can’t even define atheist, and many people identify based on culture, not religion – like Jews, for example).