The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when someone attempts to persuade others by provoking feelings of guilt or pity. Instead of presenting factual information and evidence to support an argument, one may try to play on people’s feelings. However, this is a manipulative tactic because feelings of pity are usually irrelevant to the point being made.
The appeal to pity fallacy is also known as argumentum ad misericordiam or argument from pity and can be observed in various contexts like marketing, political campaigns, and law.
The planning fallacy occurs when we underestimate how long it will take us to complete a future task. Despite knowing that similar tasks have generally taken longer than planned, we hold overly optimistic expectations and believe that next time will be different. Because we make unrealistic plans, we often end up running out of time, money, or energy.
The planning fallacy can impact any type of task and lead to several issues, including missed deadlines, increased costs, and frustration for both individuals and organisations.
Appeal to emotion fallacy occurs when someone tries to convince another person by evoking their feelings rather than providing evidence.
With the appeal to emotion fallacy, people accept a claim as true because they react emotionally to it. As a result, they focus on factors irrelevant to the question at hand, ignoring facts and logical reasoning.
Appeal to emotion fallacy (also known as argument from passion, argumentum ad passiones, or argument from emotion) is common in various contexts like advertising, law, and politics.
An either-or fallacy occurs when someone claims there are only two possible options or sides in an argument when there are actually more. This is a manipulative method that forces others to accept the speaker’s viewpoint as legitimate, feasible, or ethical. This type of black-and-white thinking often appears in political speeches, advertising, and everyday conversations.
A false cause fallacy occurs when someone incorrectly assumes that a causal relation exists between two things or events. This is an improper conclusion because either such a relationship does not exist or the evidence in support of it is insufficient.
This type of reasoning error can lead to superstitious beliefs about the causes of various phenomena and events, a poor understanding of reality, and an inability to address root causes of problems.
Ad populum fallacy refers to a claim that something is true simply because that’s what a large number of people believe. In other words, if many people believe something to be true, then it must be true.
This type of argument is often used when there is no real evidence to back up a certain claim. Ad populum fallacy (also called bandwagon fallacy, appeal to numbers, or appeal to popularity) can be found in advertisements, political speeches, and everyday discussions.
Appeal to authority fallacy refers to the use of an expert’s opinion to back up an argument. Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand. Because people tend to believe experts, appeal to authority often imbues an argument with credibility.
Appeal to authority is commonly used as a persuasion technique in advertising, politics, and everyday discussions.
The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalisation by denying the validity of any counterexamples given. By changing the definition of who or what belongs to a group or category, the speaker can conveniently dismiss any example that proves the generalisation doesn’t hold.
The word “Scotsman” can be replaced with any other type of group affiliation. The no true Scotsman fallacy often arises in discussions around political, social, and religious matters.
Begging the question fallacy is an argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. It is an attempt to prove something is true while simultaneously taking that same thing for granted. This line of reasoning is fallacious because the assumption is not justified by any evidence.
In the example above, the conclusion (the belief in God is universal) validly follows from the premise (everyone believes in God), but only because the conclusion is simply a rewording of the premise. Here, we assume in the premise what we supposedly prove in the conclusion. This is a faulty line of reasoning, because you cannot assume what you are trying to prove.
The false dilemma fallacy involves presenting a limited number of options as if they were the only options available. This forces people to choose between two extremes, even though there is a spectrum of possibilities in between. The fallacy is misleading and prevents honest debate.
A false dilemma (or false dichotomy) is a common type of fallacy. It often appears in political speeches and advertisements, as well as informal everyday conversations.