List of Fallacies

Logical Fallacies and Reasoning

On the Logic and Reason page, we examined arguments as tools that help people organize information and reason effectively. A sound argument involves gathering relevant information, organizing it coherently, and drawing a conclusion that logically follows from the premises. When a conclusion does not properly follow from its premises, faulty reasoning occurs. Logical fallacies often appear reasonable on the surface but contain errors in reasoning. These errors may be intentional or unintentional. The purpose of this page is to explain common logical fallacies and provide examples to help readers recognize them in everyday discussions and debates.  

Poisoning the Well

Poisoning the well occurs when negative information is introduced at the beginning of an argument, presentation, or debate in order to bias the audience against an opposing view before it can be fairly considered. This tactic is especially effective in debates because it overwhelms listeners with multiple accusations that are difficult to address individually.

Example:

Person A asks, “What did you think of the sermon today?”
Person B responds, “Your pastor is ignorant, immoral, dishonest, and only cares about money.”

Person B has introduced as much negative and unsupported information as possible. Even if these accusations were true, they would be irrelevant to the question about the sermon itself. The goal is not to address the argument, but to discredit the speaker and discourage thoughtful discussion.

 Ad Hominen

An ad hominem fallacy is closely related to poisoning the well, but it involves a direct personal attack rather than addressing the argument itself. Instead of engaging with the issue, the speaker attempts to discredit the individual.

Example:

William Lane Craig, founder of Reasonable Faith, is one of the most frequently attacked Christian philosophers. Rather than engaging his arguments, critics often attempt to portray him as morally flawed or intellectually dishonest. When logic cannot be refuted, character attacks are substituted. 

Alleged Certainty

Alleged certainty occurs when a conclusion is asserted confidently without sufficient evidence. Phrases such as “everyone knows,” “obviously,” or “clearly” are often used to create an illusion of certainty.

Example:

“Everyone knows the universe popped into existence out of nothing.”

This statement implies universal agreement without providing evidence. Such claims are often persuasive when delivered confidently, especially to those with less experience or authority, but confidence does not substitute for evidence. Appeal to authority

An appeal to authority occurs when someone relies on the opinion of an individual who lacks relevant expertise in the subject being discussed.

Example:

A brilliant physicist may claim that there is no evidence for God’s existence. While the physicist may be highly competent in physics, he may lack training in philosophy, theology, or biblical studies, and may also be personally biased. 

Appeal to Ignorance

This fallacy claims that something is true simply because it has not been disproven. In most fields, especially science, conclusions are based on evidence and probability rather than absolute proof.

Example:
To avoid attributing the origin of the universe to God, some propose the multiverse theory, which suggests that our universe is just one of many. Some proponents treat this theory as true primarily because it cannot be disproven, despite the lack of direct evidence. Treating an untestable hypothesis as fact is a classic appeal to ignorance.  

Base Rate Fallacy

The base rate fallacy occurs when someone focuses on isolated examples while ignoring broader statistical data.

Example:

Critics sometimes argue that religion causes most wars by pointing to events such as the Crusades or witch trials. However, according to The Encyclopedia of Wars by Axelrod and Phillips, only 123 out of 1,763 wars—approximately 6.8%—were religious in nature. Ignoring base rates leads to distorted conclusions. 

Blind Spot Bias

Blind spot bias refers to the tendency to recognize bias in others while failing to recognize one’s own.

Example:

Some individuals dismiss all historical claims about Jesus without examination, assuming bias in the sources while overlooking their own philosophical assumptions. Naturalists, for example, often assume that only material things exist. This assumption prevents them from considering immaterial explanations, such as God, regardless of the evidence.

Example argument:
Premise 1: Nothing exists unless it is material.
Premise 2: God is not material.
Conclusion: God does not exist.

Because the conclusion is built into the first premise, evidence is excluded before the discussion even begins.

Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion is assumed within the premises.

Example:

Perhaps the most famous circular reasoning is David Hume who lived in the 1700's. If it were not for argument against miracles, I would not have heard of him. When I read his essay I don't agree with him, but when I look at his logic, to my surprise, he uses circular reasoning.

Premise 1: The laws of nature are established by uniform human experieces
Premise 2: A miracle would contradict that uniform expereience
Conclusion: Therefore, testimony for a miracle will always be outweighed by the evidence of the laws of nature. 

Thank you David for sharing with the world the idea of combining a naturalist and logic He assumes that uniform experience is never broken, therefore miralcles never happen.

Contextomy,  Quote Mining

Contextomy occurs when a statement is taken out of context in a way that alters its original meaning.

Example:

A writer claims that an author “admits he has no faith,” while ignoring the surrounding explanation that qualifies or explains the statement.

Definist Fallacy

A definitional fallacy occurs when someone arbitrarily redefines a term to support an argument.

Example:

Peter Boghossian defines faith as “pretending to know things you do not know.” This definition ignores historical, linguistic, and philosophical uses of the term and replaces them with a caricature, making meaningful discussion difficult. 

Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect describes how individuals with limited knowledge often overestimate their competence, while experts may underestimate theirs. This bias affects nearly everyone at times and contributes to overconfidence in weak arguments. 

Equivocation Fallacy

Equivocation occurs when a word with multiple meanings is used inconsistently, leading to confusion.

Example:

In Hebrews 11:1, the Greek word elenchus is often misrepresented. Some focus on earlier or unrelated meanings of the word, such as “rebuke” or “accuse,” while ignoring its meaning in context: conviction. Substituting irrelevant definitions distracts from the actual meaning and results in equivocation.

Additional fallacies sometimes used alongside equivocation include etymological fallacies, red herrings, and what can be described as “gibberish fallacies,” where excessive irrelevant material obscures meaning. 

Guilt By Association

This fallacy attempts to discredit a person or idea by associating it with something negative, even when the connection is weak or misleading.

Example:

Photographs of Hitler with Christian leaders are often used to claim Christianity supported Nazism. These images ignore historical context, including Hitler’s hostility toward Christianity, the suppression of Christian groups, and the removal or punishment of clergy who opposed him.

 Red Herring

A red herring diverts attention from the original issue by introducing irrelevant information.

Example:

In Portland, Oregon, bank robbers left religious cards at a crime scene. Some speculated that religion motivated the crime. The actual motive was money, and the cards distracted investigators from the real issue.

 Single Cause Fallacies

This fallacy occurs when a complex outcome is attributed to a single cause.

Example:

Some people leave the church due to scientific concerns, but in reality, people leave for many reasons—social, moral, emotional, and intellectual. 

Conclusion

Logical fallacies are common in everyday discourse. While they can be persuasive, recognizing them allows individuals to think more critically and evaluate arguments more fairly. Awareness of fallacies does not eliminate disagreement, but it promotes clearer reasoning and more productive dialogue.,,,