World PhiloMathematics & Design Society

The special pleading fallacy, also known as "double standards" or "selective adherence," is a logical inconsistency where an individual applies different rules or standards to themselves than to others without proper justification. This fallacy occurs when someone tries to exempt their own position from critical examination by making excuses or justifications that are not based on sound reasoning. Special pleading can be a subtle form of dishonesty because it undermines the principles of fairness and consistency in argumentation. Examples:  A defendant may argue that their difficult upbringing should excuse their criminal behavior, even if there is no direct causal link between the two. This type of special pleading can undermine the justice system by allowing individuals to evade accountability for their actions. A company argues for special tax breaks not because of any broader economic principle, but simply because it would benefit them financially. A policymake...

The reification fallacy, also known as concretism, hypostatization or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, is a cognitive error where abstract concepts are treated as if they have a physical or concrete existence. This fallacy often leads to confusion and misunderstanding as it confuses the qualities of an abstract concept with those of a tangible thing. Examples : In physiology , this fallacy might manifest when a theoretical model of a physiological process is mistaken for the actual process itself. For instance, the 'fight or flight' response is a simplified abstraction of complex physiological reactions to stress, and treating it as a concrete, unvarying response would be a reification fallacy.  In medicine , reification can occur when a diagnosis, which is essentially a label for a set of symptoms, is treated as the definitive presence of a disease, ignoring the nuances of individual patient experiences.   When people talk about " society " as if it were a livi...

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 fal...

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...