A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that weakens or invalidates an argument, often appearing as an error in logic or a deceptive trick. In contrast, a valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Valid arguments maintain logical structure in their premises (e.g., A=B, B=C, therefore A=C), whereas fallacies provide irrational arguments through flawed structures or irrelevant content.

When the premises introduced do not provide evidence for the conclusion due to the structure of the argument, that is called a non-sequitur, or a formal logical fallacy. In contrast, informal logical fallacies may have a valid logical structure, but the error is that their content is irrelevant or the premises are fundementally flawed.

Understanding logical fallacies is key for engaging in good-faith debate and creating rational arguments in law, policy, and public discourse. Having a strong command of logical fallacies enables individuals to detect flawed reasoning, defend against manipulation, and improve the quality of their own decisions.

Ready to learn more? Below you will find a comprehensive list of 363 logical fallacies.

List of Logical Fallacies

Abilene Paradox – A group decides on a course of action that no individual member actually wants due to misperceived consensus.
Ableism – Dismissing arguments from disabled persons based on their disability rather than addressing the argument itself.
Abusive Ad Hominem – Attacking the arguer’s character or traits in a vicious, irrelevant way to undermine their argument.
Accent – Using ambiguous emphasis or prosody on a word or phrase to create misleading interpretations.
Accident – Applying a general rule to an atypical or exceptional case where the rule does not properly apply.
Actions Have Consequences – Falsely describing a punishment as a natural consequence to avoid accountability or imply inevitability.
Ad Baculum – Using threats or coercion to support a position instead of reasoned argument.
Ad Consequentiam – Arguing that a belief is true or false based on its desirable or undesirable consequences rather than on evidence.
Ad Crumenam – Claiming something is true or better because the arguer is wealthy or false because they are poor.
Ad Hoc Rescue – Introducing an unproven assumption to save a cherished belief from contradictory evidence without proper justification.
Ad Hominem – Attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself.
Ad Hominem Circumstantial – Dismissing an argument because the arguer has a personal stake or circumstance that allegedly biases them.
Ad Ignorantiam – Claiming something is true because it has not been proven false or false because it has not been proven true.
Ad Misericordiam – Appealing to sympathy or mercy rather than evidence to support a claim.
Ad Nauseam – Repeating an argument until opposition tires and treating the lack of response as agreement.
Ad Novitatem – Claiming something is superior solely because it is new or modern.
Ad Numerum – Arguing that a claim is true because many people believe it.
Ad Populum – Claiming a position is correct because it is popular or widely accepted.
Ad Verecundiam – Appealing to an unqualified or irrelevant authority to support a claim.
Ad Vericundiam – Misusing quotes or authority figures by taking them out of context or without proper expertise.
Affective Fallacy – Assuming emotions or feelings are self-validating and immune to rational criticism.
Affirmative Conclusion From A Negative Premise – Drawing a positive conclusion from a syllogism that contains at least one negative premise.
Affirming A Disjunct – Concluding that one option is false because the other is true in an either-or statement while ignoring possible overlap.
Affirming The Consequent – Assuming the antecedent is true simply because the consequent is true in an if-then statement.
Alphabet Soup – Overusing acronyms or technical jargon to confuse outsiders or falsely establish credibility.
Alternative Truth – Denying objective facts by claiming personal or alternative versions of reality.
Ambiguity – Using unclear or multiple meanings of words to mislead the audience.
Ambiguous Middle Term – Using a middle term with different meanings in the two premises of a syllogism.
Amphiboly – Creating ambiguity through grammatical structure that allows multiple interpretations.
Analogical Fallacy – Assuming two things are identical simply because they share some similarities.
Anecdotal Evidence – Generalizing from personal stories or isolated examples instead of systematic evidence.
Angelism – Claiming to use purely objective and emotion-free reasoning while ignoring one’s own personal biases.
Anthropomorphism – Projecting human qualities onto non-human entities and drawing false conclusions from it.
Anti-Semitism – Using false associations with anti-Jewish prejudice to dismiss arguments instead of addressing them.
Appeal To Accomplishment – Judging a claim based on the arguer’s past achievements rather than on the evidence presented.
Appeal To Closure – Accepting a questionable claim in order to achieve emotional resolution and ignore unsettled issues.
Appeal To Common Sense – Dismissing something as false simply because it is hard to imagine or seems counterintuitive.
Appeal To Consequences – Arguing that a belief is true or false based on its outcomes rather than on evidence.
Appeal To Emotion – Manipulating feelings such as fear or pity instead of using logic and evidence.
Appeal To Fear – Generating anxiety or fear to support a claim without providing supporting evidence.
Appeal To Flattery – Using praise or compliments to gain agreement instead of reasoned support.
Appeal To Force – Threatening harm to force acceptance of a claim.
Appeal To Heaven – Claiming divine or higher authority supports one’s position without providing evidence.
Appeal To Motive – Dismissing an idea by questioning the proposer’s supposed intentions rather than the idea itself.
Appeal To Nature – Claiming something is good because it is natural or bad because it is unnatural.
Appeal To Novelty – Arguing that something is better solely because it is new.
Appeal To Poverty – Supporting a claim simply because the arguer is poor.
Appeal To Ridicule – Mocking an opponent’s position instead of providing a logical refutation.
Appeal To Spite – Generating hostility toward an opponent to discredit their argument.
Appeal To The Gallery – Appealing to the popular opinion or emotions of the crowd.
Appeal To The Stone – Dismissing a claim as absurd without providing any proof or argument.
Appeal To Tradition – Claiming something is true or right simply because it is traditional or long-held.
Appeal To Wealth – Arguing that a claim is valid because the arguer is wealthy.
Appeal To Worse Problems – Dismissing a concern by claiming that other problems are worse.
Argument From Anecdote – Using personal stories as general evidence instead of systematic data.
Argument From Consequences – Judging the truth of a claim based on its outcomes rather than on facts.
Argument From Fallacy – Assuming a conclusion is false simply because one argument for it was fallacious.
Argument From Ignorance – Claiming something is true because it has not been proven false.
Argument From Incredulity – Dismissing something as false because it is hard to believe.
Argument From Inertia – Continuing a practice simply because it has always been done that way.
Argument From Repetition – Repeating a claim until it is accepted as true.
Argument From Silence – Assuming something is true due to the lack of contrary evidence.
Argument To Moderation – Assuming the middle ground between two extremes is always correct.
Baconian Fallacy – Assuming historians can know the whole truth simply by inducting from pieces of evidence.
Bald Man Fallacy – Rejecting a claim because boundaries are imprecise.
Bandwagon Effect – Adopting a belief simply because many other people hold it.
Base Rate Fallacy – Ignoring base probabilities when judging conditional probabilities.
Begging The Question – Assuming the conclusion in the premises of the argument.
Biased Generalizing – Generalizing from a non-representative or biased sample.
Biologizing – Judging something based on its supposed naturalness while ignoring evidence.
Black Or White Fallacy – Presenting only two options when more alternatives actually exist.
Blaming The Victim – Holding victims responsible for the harms done to them.
Blind Loyalty – Providing unquestioning support for authority without examining evidence.
Blood Is Thicker Than Water – Prioritizing family or kin over merit or justice.
Bogeyman Fallacy – Generating fear of an exaggerated threat to support a claim.
Bulverism – Dismissing an argument by attributing it to the arguer’s psychological motives.
Burnout – Dismissing concerns due to one’s own emotional exhaustion.
Bystander Syndrome – Failing to act because others are not acting and assuming shared responsibility.
Camel’s Nose – Claiming that a small action will inevitably lead to extreme consequences.
Card Stacking – Selectively presenting evidence to support a position while ignoring contrary evidence.
Causal Oversimplification – Attributing an outcome to a single cause when multiple causes are involved.
Chewbacca Defense – Using irrelevant confusion or nonsense to distract from the actual issue.
Cherry Picking – Selecting only data that supports a view while ignoring contradictory evidence.
Chronological Snobbery – Dismissing ideas because they are old or embracing them simply because they are new.
Circular Reasoning – Using the conclusion as support for the premise.
Clustering Illusion – Seeing patterns in random or unrelated data.
Common Source Bias – Over-relying on information from the same single source.
Complex Question – Asking a question that presupposes an unproven assumption.
Composition – Assuming that what is true of the parts is automatically true of the whole.
Confirmation Bias – Seeking only evidence that confirms preexisting beliefs.
Conjunction Fallacy – Assuming a combined event is more likely than a single event.
Conspiracy Theory – Explaining events through unproven plots while ignoring simpler explanations.
Continuum Fallacy – Rejecting a claim because the boundaries between categories are imprecise.
Converse Accident – Generalizing from an atypical or exceptional case to a broad rule.
Correlation Implies Causation – Assuming that correlation between two events means one causes the other.
Courtier’s Reply – Dismissing criticism by claiming the critic lacks sufficient expertise.
Cynicism – Dismissing arguments due to assumed self-interest without evidence.
Dead Cat Strategy – Distracting from an issue by introducing a shocking irrelevancy.
Decision Point Fallacy – Rejecting a claim because boundaries are imprecise.
Default Bias – Sticking with the status quo due to inertia.
Definist Fallacy – Defining a term in a way that unfairly favors one’s position in the argument.
Definitional Retreat – Changing the meaning of a word when it is challenged.
Denying The Antecedent – Assuming the consequent is false simply because the antecedent is false.
Disney Fallacy – Projecting human qualities onto non-human entities.
Distraction – Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the main issue.
Division – Assuming that what is true of the whole is automatically true of its parts.
Dogmatism – Declaring something unquestionable without providing evidence.
Domino Theory – Claiming that a small action will inevitably lead to extreme consequences.
Double Counting – Counting the same thing twice in probabilistic reasoning.
Drama Queen Fallacy – Overdramatizing an issue to evoke strong emotion.
Ecological Fallacy – Inferring individual traits from group-level statistics.
Either Or Fallacy – Presenting only two options when more alternatives exist.
Emotional Reasoning – Assuming that one’s feelings accurately reflect external reality.
Equivocation – Using a word with multiple meanings in an ambiguous way.
Essentializing – Treating abstract concepts as if they were concrete physical things.
Etymological Fallacy – Assuming a word’s original historical meaning is its current meaning.
Euphemism – Using softened language to obscure or downplay the truth.
Everyday Language – Using vague everyday terms to mislead the audience.
Evil – Labeling something as evil to dismiss it without further argument.
Excluded Middle – Presenting only two options when more alternatives exist.
Executive Summary – Oversimplifying complex issues into misleadingly simple statements.
Existential Fallacy – Drawing a particular conclusion from universal premises in a syllogism.
False Analogy – Comparing two unlike things as if they were equivalent.
False Attribution – Citing a biased or fabricated source as evidence.
False Authority – Appealing to an unqualified person as an expert.
False Cause – Assuming that unrelated events are causally linked.
False Compromise – Assuming the middle position between extremes is always correct.
False Dichotomy – Presenting only two options when more alternatives exist.
False Dilemma – Presenting only two options when more alternatives actually exist.
False Equivalence – Treating two unequal things as if they were equal.
False Positioning – Dismissing an argument by falsely associating it with a discredited group.
False Priors – Starting an argument with flawed or incorrect assumptions.
False Start Fallacy – Prematurely concluding without gathering full evidence.
False Trilemma – Presenting only three options when more alternatives actually exist.
Faulty Analogy – Comparing two unlike things as if they were equivalent.
Faulty Generalization – Basing broad conclusions on insufficient or unrepresentative samples.
Faulty Motives – Dismissing an argument based on alleged intentions rather than its merit.
Favoritism – Prioritizing family members or friends over merit or justice.
Finish The Job – Continuing bad actions to honor past investments instead of cutting losses.
First World Problems – Dismissing valid concerns by claiming they are trivial compared to worse problems elsewhere.
Fordism – Applying rigid, uniform standards to diverse people or situations.
Forking Paths Fallacy – Believing an experiment avoids issues of multiple comparisons when it does not.
Form Function Attribution Bias – Assuming an object’s function based solely on its appearance.
Four Terms – Using a syllogism with four terms instead of the required three.
Furtive Fallacy – Attributing outcomes to hidden malicious actions without evidence.
Gambler’s Fallacy – Believing that past random events affect the probability of future random events.
Garden Of Forking Paths Fallacy – Ignoring the problem of multiple comparisons in data analysis.
Gaslighting – Manipulating someone into doubting their own sanity or perception of facts.
Genetic Fallacy – Judging an idea based on its origin rather than its current merit.
Golden Mean – Assuming the middle position between two extremes is always the best one.
Good Old Days – Idealizing the past to dismiss present ideas or changes.
Green Fallacy – Claiming something is good because it is natural or bad because it is unnatural.
Groupthink – Prioritizing group consensus over critical thinking and evidence.
Guilt By Association – Dismissing an argument because of its association with a discredited person or group.
Halo Effect – Letting one positive trait overly influence the overall judgment of a person or thing.
Hard Easy Effect – Showing overconfidence in easy tasks and underconfidence in difficult ones.
Hasty Generalization – Drawing a broad conclusion from a small or biased sample.
Hedonic Recall Bias – Misremembering past events based on current mood.
Historian’s Fallacy – Judging past decisions with the benefit of present-day knowledge.
Historical Fallacy – Assuming a process caused specific results when the events were unrelated.
Homunculus Fallacy – Explaining a concept by using a smaller version of the same concept.
Horn Effect – Letting one negative trait taint the overall judgment of a person or thing.
Hostile Attribution Bias – Interpreting ambiguous actions as intentionally hostile.
Hot Hand Fallacy – Believing that a streak of success in random events will continue.
Humanitarian Crisis – Exploiting real suffering to justify intervention without proper evidence.
Humor Effect – Remembering funny information better than neutral information.
Hypostatization – Treating abstract concepts as if they were concrete physical things.
Iconoclastic Fallacy – Claiming something is true simply because it opposes established orthodoxy.
Identifiable Victim Effect – Feeling more empathy for a single identifiable victim than for many anonymous ones.
If By Whiskey – Using ambiguous language to appear to support both sides of an issue.
Ignoratio Elenchi – Proving a conclusion that is irrelevant to the original argument.
Illicit Major – Using an undistributed major term in a syllogism.
Illicit Minor – Using an undistributed minor term in a syllogism.
Illicit Negative – Drawing a positive conclusion from a syllogism with at least one negative premise.
Illicit Substitution Of Identicals – Swapping identical terms in a way that leads to a false conclusion.
Illusion Of Asymmetric Insight – Believing one understands others better than they understand oneself.
Illusion Of Explanatory Depth – Overestimating how well one understands complex topics.
Illusion Of Learning – Mistaking familiarity with a topic for true mastery.
Illusion Of Objectivity – Overestimating one’s own impartiality.
Illusory Correlation – Perceiving a relationship between variables where none actually exists.
I’m Entitled To My Opinion – Dismissing criticism by claiming one has a right to their opinion.
Impact Bias – Overestimating the emotional impact of future events.
Imposter Syndrome – Doubting one’s abilities despite clear evidence of competence.
Incomplete Comparison – Making a comparison without providing all necessary information.
Ineffability – Claiming that truth is too complex or mysterious to explain clearly.
Inflation Of Conflict – Dismissing an entire field because experts disagree on some points.
Information Bias – Seeking out irrelevant information that does not help solve the problem.
Insensitivity To Sample Size – Ignoring the importance of sample size when judging probabilities.
Intentionality Fallacy – Insisting that the meaning of a statement must match the author’s original intent.
Interoceptive Bias – Misinterpreting bodily signals as evidence of external reality.
Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy – Believing that a rare event implies many previous trials occurred.
Invincible Ignorance – Refusing to accept evidence no matter how strong it is.
Ipse Dixit – Asserting something as true without providing any supporting evidence.
Irrelevant Conclusion – Reaching a conclusion that does not address the original issue.
Is Ought Fallacy – Deriving a prescriptive statement about what ought to be from a descriptive statement about what is.
Job’s Comforter – Blaming a person’s suffering on their own moral failings.
Judgmental Language – Using insulting or loaded language to discredit an argument without addressing it.
Just World Fallacy – Believing the world is inherently fair and therefore blaming victims for their misfortune.
Kettle Logic – Using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend the same position.
Kiss Principle – Oversimplifying complex issues into overly simple solutions.
Knowing The Unknowable – Drawing firm conclusions from evidence that is impossible to obtain.
Lag Effect – Retaining information better when learning is spaced out over time.
Law Of The Instrument – Over-relying on a familiar tool or method for every problem.
Less Is Better Effect – Preferring smaller quantities when options are presented separately.
Leveling And Sharpening – Distorting memories over time by forgetting details or exaggerating others.
Levels Of Processing Effect – Remembering information better when it is processed more deeply.
Line Drawing Fallacy – Rejecting a claim because boundaries between categories are imprecise.
Loaded Label – Using emotionally charged terms to bias the audience against an idea.
Loaded Question – Asking a question that presupposes an unproven assumption.
Logic Chopping – Focusing on trivial details to avoid addressing the main issue.
Logical Positivism – Dismissing claims that cannot be empirically verified.
Loss Aversion – Preferring to avoid losses rather than acquiring equivalent gains.
Ludic Fallacy – Applying rules from games or controlled models to real-life situations.
Lump Of Labour Fallacy – Assuming there is a fixed amount of work in an economy.
Magical Thinking – Believing that one’s thoughts or wishes can directly affect reality.
Manifest Destiny – Claiming divine or higher authority supports one’s position without evidence.
Many Questions Fallacy – Asking a question that contains multiple unproven assumptions.
Masculine Bias In Personhood – Viewing masculine traits as more representative of humanity.
Masked Man Fallacy – Substituting identical terms in a way that leads to a false conclusion.
Mcnamara Fallacy – Ignoring qualitative data in favor of only quantitative measurements.
Memory Inhibition – Suppressing memories that seem irrelevant to the current task.
Mere Exposure Effect – Preferring things simply because they are familiar.
Mind Projection Fallacy – Assuming one’s own perceptions are inherent properties of the world.
Misinformation Effect – Incorporating false information into one’s memories.
Misleading Vividness – Overemphasizing dramatic or vivid examples while ignoring statistics.
Misplaced Concreteness – Treating abstract concepts as if they were concrete physical things.
Modal Fallacy – Confusing necessity with sufficiency in logical statements.
Modal Scope Fallacy – Misplacing the scope of necessity in drawing conclusions.
Modality Effect – Remembering the end of auditory lists better than visual ones.
Money Illusion – Focusing on nominal monetary value rather than real purchasing power.
Monocausal Fallacy – Attributing a complex outcome to a single cause.
Moral Credential Effect – Allowing past good deeds to justify later bad behavior.
Moral Luck – Judging the morality of actions based on their outcomes rather than intentions.
Moral Superiority – Claiming ethical high ground without providing evidence or reasoning.
Moralistic Fallacy – Inferring factual conclusions from moral or value-based judgments.
Mortification – Using self-punishment in an attempt to purify or atone.
Motte And Bailey – Switching between a defensible easy position and a harder one when challenged.
Moving The Ball Down The Field – Using sports imagery inappropriately to frame an argument.
Moving The Goalposts – Changing the criteria for proof after it has been met.
Multiple Comparisons Fallacy – Ignoring the need to adjust for multiple statistical tests.
Name Calling – Using derogatory labels to dismiss an argument without addressing it.
Natural Law Argument – Claiming something is wrong simply because it is unnatural.
Naturalistic Fallacy – Inferring moral values directly from natural facts.
Negativity Bias – Giving greater weight to negative information than to positive information.
Negative Conclusion From Affirmative Premises – Drawing a negative conclusion from a syllogism with only positive premises.
Neuropareidolia – Seeing meaningful patterns in random or ambiguous stimuli.
Next In Line Effect – Remembering information poorly just before one’s own turn to speak.
Nirvana Fallacy – Rejecting practical solutions because they are not perfect.
Nit Picking – Focusing on minor flaws to undermine the main argument.
No True Scotsman – Redefining a category to exclude counterexamples that challenge the claim.
Non Causa Pro Causa – Mistaking a non-cause for the actual cause of an event.
Non Sequitur – Drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises.
Normalcy Bias – Underestimating the likelihood or impact of a disaster.
Not Invented Here – Rejecting ideas or solutions simply because they come from outside one’s group.
Nut Picking – Selecting extreme or unrepresentative examples to discredit an entire group.
Objectivity Illusion – Overestimating one’s own impartiality and lack of bias.
Observational Interpretation Fallacy – Misinterpreting associations as causal relationships.
Observer Bias – Allowing expectations to influence what one observes.
Observer Expectancy Effect – Subtly influencing participants in a study through expectations.
Omission Bias – Preferring harmful omissions over equally harmful actions.
Optimism Bias – Underestimating the likelihood of negative events happening to oneself.
Ostrich Effect – Ignoring negative information or unpleasant realities.
Othering – Dehumanizing people by portraying them as fundamentally different outsiders.
Outcome Bias – Judging the quality of a decision based solely on its outcome.
Outgroup Favoritism – Favoring members of an outgroup in certain contexts.
Outgroup Homogeneity Bias – Perceiving members of an outgroup as more similar to each other than they actually are.
Overconfidence Effect – Displaying excessive confidence in the accuracy of one’s judgments.
Overgeneralizing – Drawing broad conclusions from insufficient or unrepresentative evidence.
Overwhelming Exception – Making a generalization that is undermined by so many exceptions it becomes meaningless.
P Hacking – Manipulating data analysis to achieve statistical significance.
Package Deal – Treating dissimilar concepts as if they were inseparably linked.
Pareidolia – Seeing meaningful patterns or faces in random or ambiguous stimuli.
Part List Cueing Effect – Having partial cues impair recall of the full list.
Pathetic Fallacy – Attributing human emotions to non-human entities or nature.
Paternalism – Dismissing arguments by treating the arguer as childish or immature.
Perfectionist Fallacy – Rejecting good solutions because they are not perfect.
Personalization – Seeing oneself as the cause of external events that are unrelated.
Persuasive Definition – Defining a term in a way that unfairly favors one’s own position.
Phantom Effect – Perceiving stimuli that are not actually present.
Picture Superiority Effect – Remembering images better than words.
Plan Continuation Bias – Continuing with an original plan despite changing circumstances.
Planning Fallacy – Underestimating the time, costs, or risks of future tasks.
Plant Blindness – Failing to notice or appreciate plants in one’s environment.
Playing On Emotions – Evoking strong feelings instead of using logic and evidence.
Poisoning The Well – Preemptively discrediting an opponent before they present their argument.
Pollyanna Principle – Assuming that others share one’s own positive outlook or values.
Positive Thinking Fallacy – Believing that positive thoughts alone can favorably influence reality.
Positivity Effect – Focusing more on positive information as one ages.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc – Assuming that because one event followed another, the first caused the second.
Pout – Rejecting further dialogue by using silent treatment.
Prevention Bias – Overvaluing the prevention of losses compared to equivalent gains.
Primacy Effect – Remembering the first items in a list better than later ones.
Probability Matching – Matching choices to probabilities instead of always choosing the optimal option.
Processing Difficulty Effect – Perceiving harder-to-process information as less credible.
Procrustean Fallacy – Applying rigid standards to diverse people or situations.
Pro Innovation Bias – Overvaluing new ideas or innovations simply because they are new.
Projection Bias – Assuming that others share one’s own current feelings or preferences.
Proof By Assertion – Repeating a claim without evidence until it is accepted as true.
Proof Surrogate – Using distractions or rhetoric instead of actually proving the claim.
Proportionality Bias – Expecting causes to be proportional in size to their effects.
Prosecutor’s Fallacy – Overemphasizing the strength of evidence by misstating probabilities.
Prosopography – Reciting lists of names to create false emphasis or credibility.
Prosody – Using ambiguous emphasis or tone to create misleading interpretations.
Pseudocertainty Effect – Treating uncertain outcomes as certain when making decisions.
Psychogenetic Fallacy – Dismissing an argument by attributing it to the arguer’s psychological motives.
Pygmalion Effect – Having expectations that positively influence another’s performance.
Quantification Bias – Over-relying on numerical data while ignoring qualitative factors.
Quantifier Shift – Confusing statements like “for all there is some” with “there is some for all”.
Quantitative Fallacy – Ignoring qualitative data in favor of only quantitative measurements.
Questionable Analogy – Comparing two unlike things as if they were equivalent.
Quibbling – Complaining about minor points to undermine the main argument.
Quoting Out Of Context – Distorting meaning by selectively quoting someone.
Rationalization – Offering false or self-serving reasons to justify a belief or action.
Reactance – Opposing a position simply because it is perceived as threatening one’s freedom.
Reactive Devaluation – Devaluing proposals simply because they come from an opponent.
Recency Bias – Giving greater weight to recent information than to older information.
Recency Effect – Remembering the last items in a list better than earlier ones.
Red Herring – Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the main issue.
Reductio Ad Absurdum – Attacking an exaggerated or extreme version of the opponent’s position.
Reductionism – Oversimplifying complex issues by reducing them to overly simple explanations.
Reification – Treating abstract concepts as if they were concrete physical things.
Regression Fallacy – Ignoring natural fluctuations and assuming regression to the mean is caused by intervention.
Relative Privation – Dismissing a concern by claiming that other problems are worse.
Reminiscence Bump – Remembering events from one’s youth better than other life periods.
Repetition Blindness – Failing to notice repeated items in a sequence.
Restraint Bias – Overestimating one’s ability to resist temptation.
Retrospective Determinism – Seeing past events as having been inevitable.
Reversing Causation – Mistaking the effect for the cause or vice versa.
Rhyme As Reason – Finding rhyming statements more persuasive or true than non-rhyming ones.
Risk Compensation – Taking greater risks when safety measures are in place.
Romantic Rebel – Claiming something is true simply because it opposes mainstream norms.
Rosy Retrospection – Remembering the past more positively than it actually was.
Salience Bias – Giving greater weight to information that is more noticeable or emotionally striking.
Save The Children Fallacy – Exploiting concern for children to gain support for a position.
Scapegoating – Unfairly blaming a person or group for broader problems.
Scare Tactics – Using fear to support a claim without providing evidence.
Scope Fallacy – Misrepresenting the logical scope of a statement or phrase.
Scope Neglect – Ignoring the scale of a problem when evaluating its importance.
Scoring – Using inappropriate sports imagery to frame a serious argument.
Scripted Message – Repeating prepared talking points without genuine engagement.
Selective Attention – Focusing only on certain information while ignoring other relevant details.
Selective Perception – Filtering information to match preexisting expectations.
Self Enhancement Bias – Inflating one’s own positive qualities and abilities.
Self Relevance Effect – Remembering information better when it relates to oneself.
Self Serving Bias – Attributing personal successes to internal factors and failures to external ones.
Semmelweis Reflex – Rejecting new evidence because it contradicts established norms.
Sending The Wrong Message – Rejecting a truth because it might encourage undesirable behavior.
Serial Position Effect – Remembering the first and last items in a list better than middle ones.
Sexual Overperception Bias – Overestimating sexual interest from others.
Shared Information Bias – Focusing on information already known to the group instead of new information.
Shifting The Burden Of Proof – Demanding that the opponent disprove the claim instead of proving it oneself.
Shopping Hungry Fallacy – Making important decisions while under strong emotion or hunger.
Silent Majority Fallacy – Claiming hidden widespread support without providing evidence.
Simpleton’s Fallacy – Equating ignorance with knowledge in democratic decision-making.
Single Cause Fallacy – Attributing a complex outcome to only one cause.
Slanting – Selectively presenting evidence to support a position while ignoring contrary evidence.
Slippery Slope – Claiming that a small action will inevitably lead to extreme negative consequences without evidence.
Snow Job – Overwhelming someone with irrelevant information to confuse or distract.
Sob Story – Appealing to sympathy or pity rather than evidence to support a claim.
Social Comparison Bias – Evaluating oneself or others primarily through comparison to other people.
Social Cryptomnesia – Forgetting the true origins of ideas or beliefs.
Social Desirability Bias – Answering questions in a way that makes one appear more favorable.
Soldiers Honor Fallacy – Honoring all soldiers regardless of the morality of the cause they fought for.
Sorites Fallacy – Rejecting a claim because boundaries between categories are imprecise.
Source Confusion – Misattributing the source of a memory.
Spacing Effect – Retaining information better when learning sessions are spaced out.
Special Pleading – Exempting one’s own case from a general rule without justification.
Spotlight Effect – Overestimating how much attention others are paying to oneself.
Standard Version Fallacy – Declaring one particular version of events as the authoritative truth.
Star Power – Using celebrity endorsements as support without relevant expertise.
Status Quo Bias – Preferring things to remain as they are due to inertia.
Stereotype Bias – Applying generalized group characteristics to specific individuals.
Stereotyping – Expecting individuals to possess the characteristics of their group.
Straw Man – Misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to refute.
Style Over Substance – Prioritizing attractive presentation over actual content or evidence.
Subadditivity Effect – Judging the probability of the whole as less than the sum of its parts.
Subjective Validation – Accepting a statement as true because it feels personally relevant.
Suffix Effect – Experiencing interference with recall of the end of a list.
Suggestibility – Incorporating suggested false information into one’s memories.
Sunk Cost Fallacy – Continuing a failing endeavor due to prior investment of time or resources.
Suppressed Correlative – Redefining terms to make reasonable alternatives impossible.
Suppressed Evidence – Deliberately ignoring or withholding evidence that contradicts the claim.
Surrogation – Mistaking a proxy measure for the actual goal.
Survivorship Bias – Focusing only on successful cases while ignoring failures that did not survive.
Sweeping Generalization – Applying a general rule too broadly to atypical cases.
System Justification – Defending the status quo even when it works against one’s own interests.
Systematic Bias – Making consistent errors in judgment across similar situations.
Taboo – Declaring certain topics off-limits to discussion without justification.
Talking Points – Repeating prepared statements without genuine engagement or evidence.
Teleological Bias – Assuming natural events have inherent purpose or design.
Telescoping Effect – Misplacing the timing of past events in memory.
Testing Effect – Remembering information better when actively retrieving it rather than passively reviewing.
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy – Cherry-picking data after the fact to fit a desired pattern.
The Good Old Days – Idealizing the past to dismiss present ideas or changes.
The Simple Truth Fallacy – Insisting that complex truths must always be simple.
The Snow Job – Overwhelming someone with irrelevant information to confuse or distract.
The Soldiers Honor Fallacy – Honoring all soldiers regardless of the morality of the cause they fought for.
The Standard Version Fallacy – Declaring one particular version of events as the authoritative truth.
The Taboo – Declaring certain topics off-limits to discussion without justification.
The Third Person Effect – Believing that media or messages affect other people more than oneself.
The Thousand Flowers Fallacy – Allowing many ideas to be expressed and then suppressing dissent.
They’re All Crooks – Dismissing all politicians as corrupt to avoid engaging with specific issues.
Third Person Effect – Believing that media or messages affect other people more than oneself.
Thought Terminating Cliche – Using a short phrase to shut down critical thinking and end debate.
Time Saving Bias – Underestimating the time saved by increasing speed in familiar tasks.
Tip Of The Tongue – Experiencing a temporary failure to retrieve a known word or fact from memory.
Token Endorsement Fallacy – Using endorsement from a minority member to justify a position toward that group.
Tone Policing – Focusing on the emotional tone of an argument instead of its content.
Too Much Of A Coincidence – Assuming sequence or coincidence proves causation.
Traitorous Critic Fallacy – Dismissing criticism by labeling the critic as disloyal.
Trait Ascription Bias – Over-attributing behavior to personality traits rather than situational factors.
Truth Bias – Assuming that statements from others are generally true.
Tu Quoque – Dismissing an argument by pointing out the arguer’s hypocrisy.
Two Truths – Accepting two contradictory statements as both being valid.
Two Wrongs Make A Right – Justifying one’s wrong action by pointing to someone else’s similar wrong.
Ultimate Attribution Error – Making biased attributions about behavior based on group membership.
Unconscious Bias – Automatically applying prejudices without conscious awareness.
Undistributed Middle – Failing to properly distribute the middle term in a syllogism.
Uniformity – Applying rigid, uniform standards to diverse people or situations.
Unit Bias – Assuming a single unit of something is the appropriate amount regardless of context.
Unrealistic Optimism – Overestimating positive outcomes for oneself.
Unrelated Conclusion – Drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises.
Utility Cascade – Overestimating the chain of positive utilities from an initial small action.
Vacuous Truth – Making a technically true statement that provides no meaningful information.
Valence Effect – Allowing the emotional tone of information to influence judgment.
Venting – Expressing anger without engaging in reasoned discussion.
Von Restorff Effect – Remembering distinctive or unusual items better than ordinary ones.
Weak Analogy – Comparing two things that are not sufficiently similar.
Weber Fechner Law – Perceiving changes in stimuli according to a logarithmic scale.
Well Traveled Road Effect – Underestimating the time taken on familiar routes.
Whataboutism – Distracting from an accusation by making a counter-accusation.
Willed Ignorance – Deliberately choosing ignorance to avoid uncomfortable truths.
Wishful Thinking – Believing something is true simply because one wishes it to be so.
Worse Than Average Effect – Underestimating one’s abilities in difficult tasks.
Wrong Direction – Mistaking the effect for the cause or vice versa.
Zero Risk Bias – Preferring the complete elimination of a small risk over a larger overall risk reduction.
Zero Sum Bias – Viewing situations as strictly win-lose when they are not.
Zeigarnik Effect – Remembering unfinished tasks better than completed ones.
Zoomorphism – Attributing animal qualities inappropriately to humans or objects.

Logical Fallacies

List of Logical Fallacies

Share this:

Like this: