World PhiloMathematics & Design Society

The appeal to authority fallacy, also known as argumentum ad verecundiam, is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is deemed true or false based on the authority of the claimant rather than the evidence provided.  It is a common error in reasoning where the opinion of an authority or expert on a topic is used to support their argument, rather than presenting solid evidence or reasoning. This fallacy can take various forms, such as citing a figure of authority who may not be an expert in the subject matter, or assuming that because an expert said something, it must be true without further examination. Examples: In physiology , this might manifest as accepting a fitness guru's health advice without questioning the scientific evidence behind it.  In medicine and pharmacy , it could involve prescribing a medication based on a pharmaceutical company's endorsement rather than clinical trial data.  In astronomy , one might mistakenly accept a celebrity's opinion on space

The appeal to emotion fallacy, also known as argumentum ad passiones, is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is made based on the manipulation of emotions, rather than on valid reasoning or factual evidence. This can be misleading as it may cause individuals to make decisions that are not in their best enlightened interest. This type of fallacy can be particularly persuasive in various fields due to the human tendency to respond to emotional stimuli. Appeal to emotions fallacy is a common tactic used in both politics, science and everday life to manipulate people's feelings in order to gain support or approval for a particular position or argument.  Examples: In physiology and medicine , a researcher might emphasize the suffering of patients rather than presenting the statistical efficacy of a new treatment.  Urging people to avoid certain foods by appealing to fear of disease without scientific backing is an example of this fallacy.  In pharmacy , marketing strategies

The ambiguity fallacy, also known as Equivocation Fallacy, is a common logical fallacy that occurs when a statement or argument is unclear, vague, leading to multiple possible interpretations and confusion. This fallacy can be found in various fields such as science and philosophy, where precision and clarity are crucial for making valid arguments and drawing reliable conclusions. Ambiguity can be particularly harmful as it can lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and ultimately, incorrect conclusions. To avoid ambiguity fallacy, it is crucial for researchers to be precise in their language, provide clear definitions and context for their claims, and ensure that their data and conclusions are not open to multiple interpretations. Examples: In physiology , ambiguity fallacy could manifest when a term like "fitness" is used without context, suggesting both physical robustness and progressive suitability.  In physiology , one might argue that 'natural' processe

The Personal Attack Fallacy, also known as the Ad Hominem,  Poisoning the Well, Abusive Fallacy, Argumentum Ad Hominem and Circumstantial Ad Hominem,  is a common logical fallacy where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.  When the personal attack fallacy is employed, the conclusion is often skewed, as the focus shifts from the argument's logic to the individual's characteristics, which are usually irrelevant to the argument's validity. This fallacy is often used as a way to discredit an opponent without engaging with the substance of their argument. The Personal Attack fallacy can be detrimental to intellectual discourse and hinder the pursuit of knowledge. Understanding and avoiding this fallacy is crucial for maintaining the integrity of discourse across disciplines.  Examples: In medicine , one might encounter an argument that discred

A syllogistic fallacy occurs when the conclusion of a syllogism, which is a logical argument consisting of two premises and a conclusion, is invalid or unsupported by the premises. Examples: All goods that are scarce are valuable.  Diamonds are scarce. Therefore, diamonds are the most valuable goods. This is a fallacy because it confuses scarcity with absolute value, ignoring other factors that contribute to a good's value. All profitable companies are large companies.  Company X is profitable. Therefore, Company X is large. This overlooks the fact that there are many small companies that are also profitable. All birds have feathers. All penguins have feathers. Therefore, all penguins are birds. This is incorrect because not all creatures with feathers are birds.  All radioactive elements are dangerous. Some medical treatments use radioactive elements. Therefore, all medical treatments using radioactive elements are dangerous. This ignores the controlled and beneficial use of radio

The sunk cost fallacy is a cognitive bias that occurs when an individual continues an endeavor due to the substantial resources already invested , such as time, money, or effort, rather than evaluating the current situation objectively. The term "sunk costs" refers to costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered, but individuals may have difficulty letting go of these investments due to their emotional attachment or the fear of losing out on the initial investment. This fallacy can lead to irrational decision-making and can have negative consequences This fallacy can manifest across various fields: In physiology, a researcher might continue a flawed experiment due to the time already invested, despite new evidence suggesting a different approach.  In medicine, a physician might persist with an ineffective treatment due to the cost of the medication already purchased.  In pharmacy, a company may continue to fund a drug's development despite clinical trial