World PhiloMathematics & Design Society

The verbosity fallacy, also known as as argumentum verbosium, proof by verbosity, or proof by intimidation, occurs when someone tries to win an argument by overwhelming their opponent with an excessive amount of words or information, rather than focusing on the quality of their argument. This fallacy relies on the belief that more words equate to a more convincing argument, when in reality, it is the substance and logic of the argument that should be the focus. Examples: In science , this can manifest when a researcher presents a barrage of data, jargon, and mathematical equations, assuming that the sheer volume of information will persuade peers and the public. For example, a scientist might list numerous irrelevant statistics and complex theories to support a hypothesis, overshadowing the lack of robust evidence or logical coherence. This tactic can be particularly misleading in scientific debates, where a clear and concise presentation of facts should prevail.  The verbosity fallacy

The "proving too much" fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is pushed to an extreme, leading to absurd or unrealistic conclusions. This fallacy is also known as the "slippery slope" fallacy or overgeneralization, as it involves making overly broad generalizations that do not logically follow from the premises presented. Examples If a study on a new drug claims it cures all diseases because it has been shown to treat one specific ailment effectively, this would be a case of Proving Too Much. The argument is flawed because it assumes without sufficient evidence that the drug's effectiveness on one condition applies universally. A The assertion that because a particular scientific model explains a phenomenon in one context, it must therefore explain all similar phenomena, disregarding the nuances and variables that differ in each case. Such overextensions can lead to the dismissal of the argument as it claims more than what is logically justifi

The Personal Incredulity fallacy is a logical error that occurs when an individual dismisses a claim or concept because it seems too difficult to understand or goes against their personal experience or beliefs, rather than due to any concrete evidence against it. This fallacy occurs when someone concludes that a statement is false or incorrect solely because they do not believe it to be true based on their own personal beliefs or lack of understanding. Examples : Example of the personal incredulity fallacy is the idea that climate change is not real because the weather seems to be unpredictable. Some individuals refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change because they do not understand the complexities of the climate system or cannot imagine that human activities could have such a significant impact on the environment. In the field of physiology , for example, one might reject the complex mechanisms of homeostasis because they cannot fathom the intricate

The fallacy of the mean, also known as the fallacy of the middle ground or the fallacy of moderation, is a logical error in which it is assumed that the truth lies in between two opposing viewpoints simply because they are perceived as extremes. This fallacy suggests that a moderate position between two extremes must be correct, without considering the actual merits of the arguments. Examples : In the realm of education , the fallacy of the mean can be observed in debates over standardized testing. Some argue for standardized testing as the only way to measure student achievement, while others argue for completely abolishing standardized testing. The fallacy of the mean would suggest that a compromise, such as using standardized testing only for certain subjects or grade levels, would be the best solution. However, research has shown that standardized testing can have negative effects on student learning and should be used in conjunction with other assessment methods. In economics , if

The Appeal to Purity fallacy, is a logical fallacy where one modifies the definition of a term in an ad hoc (when needed) fashion to exclude a counterexample and protect a general assertion. It is a common logical fallacy where someone dismisses a valid criticism or counterargument by claiming that it does not apply to their position because it is based on a distorted or impure version of that position. In other words, the person making the argument is trying to maintain the purity or perfection of their position by redefining it to exclude any criticisms. Examples: In the realm of health and wellness, the appeal to purity fallacy can be seen when someone claims that only a certain type of diet or exercise routine is truly effective or beneficial. This argument ignores the individual differences in metabolism, genetics, and lifestyle that may impact the effectiveness of different health practices. One example of the appeal to purity fallacy is when a political candidate claims that th

The loaded question fallacy, also known as a complex question or presupposition, is a rhetorical device in which a question contains a controversial assumption that is hidden or not explicitly stated. By asking a question that already assumes something to be true, the person posing the question is attempting to manipulate the respondent into agreeing with their viewpoint. This fallacy is often used in debates, interviews, and arguments to steer the conversation in a certain direction and undermine the opposing side. Examples: One common example of a complex question fallacy is "Have you stopped cheating on your taxes?" This question presupposes that the person being asked has been cheating on their taxes, putting them in a difficult position where they must deny the accusation or risk incriminating themselves. By framing the question in this way, the asker is attempting to discredit the respondent and cast doubt on their integrity.  "Do you still beat your wife?" Th