Strawman
Direct Translation: Strawman Alternative: Adding a Charge/Accusation (or: Adding a Fault)
The act of distorting an opponent’s arguments to make them easier to attack.
By exaggerating, distorting, or even completely fabricating an opponent’s arguments, one presents their own position as more reasonable. However, sincere and rational debate is destroyed by this form of argumentation, which is essentially fraudulent.
Example: Xiao Ming says: “The state should invest more funds in the medical and education sectors.” Xiao Liang replies: “That’s terrifying! You actually hate the country so much that you want to reduce defense spending, leaving our army defenseless and unable to protect the nation.”
Note: The original English term for this fallacy, “strawman,” translates directly to “straw man.” Since a straw man is not a real person, it cannot offer any resistance in a fight, and it is easily knocked down. In the UK, this fallacy is often called “Aunt Sally.”
Attribution Error
Drawing the conclusion that a causal relationship exists between two things, whether that relationship is genuinely present or merely hypothetical.
This occurs because two things are associated, or simply because they exist simultaneously, leading one to mistakenly believe that a causal relationship exists between them. Different things may occur simultaneously or sequentially, but this does not necessarily mean that one is the cause of the other. Sometimes, the association between two things is purely coincidental, and it is even possible that both things share the same cause.
Example: Xiao Ming points to a table and says, “Over the past few centuries, global temperatures have been rising, and at the same time, the number of pirates has been decreasing. Therefore, we can conclude: the existence of pirates has lowered global temperatures, and global warming is a hoax.”
Emotional Blackmail
Manipulating emotions instead of using genuinely effective arguments.
Emotional blackmail includes manipulating fear, jealousy, hatred, pity, pride, and so on. There is one very important thing we must know: sometimes a logically sound argument may trigger a strong emotional response. But abandoning logic and relying solely on appeals to emotion to mask the fact that one’s own viewpoint lacks strong evidence will only lead to more problems and fallacies. Every mentally healthy person is influenced by emotion, so emotional blackmail is a very common and effective debate strategy, but essentially, it is a flawed and hypocritical way of arguing, and it tends to rationalize the other party’s emotional loss of control.
Example: Xiao Liang dislikes drinking mutton soup, but his father tells him, “Think about the children in poor African countries who are starving to death, those pitiful kids who can’t eat anything.”
Fallacy Leading to Error
Direct Translation: Fallacy leading to error (or: Fallacy of Fallacy) Alternative: Mistake leading to mistake (or: Mistake after Mistake)
If the quality of the argument is poor, or if the argument contains errors, one judges that the conclusion must be wrong.
It is not logically sound that a fallacious viewpoint must lead to a fallacious conclusion; even a wrong premise can be presented using sound logic. Similarly, it is possible to prove a correct viewpoint using flawed premises in a debate, or to incorporate logical fallacies into the argument itself.
Example: Xiao Li discovers that Xiao Hong advocates for a healthy diet simply because some dubious nutritionist claims, “A healthy diet is a popular lifestyle,” which is unreliable. But Xiao Li then concludes, “Therefore, the conclusion that a healthy diet is necessary is wrong, and binge eating every day is fine,” which is also a fallacy.
Slippery Slope
If A happens, then eventually bad thing Z will happen, so we cannot allow A to happen.
The problem with this form of argumentation is that it avoids discussing the current issue A, instead shifting the focus to a hypothetical extreme assumption Z. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that Z will necessarily occur because of A. This fallacy is also a form of emotional blackmail, using unsubstantiated conjecture to undermine the fairness of the current discussion.
Example: Xiao Qiang asserts that if we allow same-sex marriage, the next thing that will happen is that we will allow incestuous marriage, and even allow humans to marry monkeys or humans to marry cars.
Ad Hominem
Discrediting an opponent’s argument by attacking their personal character or other personal traits, such as height, appearance, or social status.
Ad hominem can be an overt attack in public, or it can be a subtle implication that the opponent’s character is questionable, thereby tarnishing their argument. In a debate, ad hominem often achieves the effect of defeating the opponent without a fight.
Example: Huihui presents undeniable evidence showing that the new tax system is fairer, more reasonable, and worth promoting. Zhuang asks the audience, “Do you think you should believe anything said by a woman who is unmarried, has a criminal record, and smells like body odor?”
Tu Quoque (You Too)
Responding to criticism by turning the accusation back onto the critic.
The original Latin term for this fallacy is tu quoque, meaning “you also (did it).” This logical fallacy is commonly known as “the hypocrisy of the other.” It is usually a distraction technique that forces the party who must defend their argument to shift the focus from themselves back onto the person who made the criticism.
Example: At the hospital, Xiao Mei points out that Xiao Li’s poor health condition is due to her failure to strictly follow the doctor’s orders. Instead of reflecting on why she didn’t follow the orders, Xiao Li blames Xiao Mei: “Don’t talk about me! You never listened to the doctor’s advice either; you never took your medicine on time!”
Note: In China, this fallacy is also known as the “Flea Theory” (臭虫论): Lu Xun satirized in his 1933 article “Foreigners Also Have” how Chinese people, when criticized, claim that other countries also have the same mistake to cover up their own errors. “Everywhere in China, there is also in foreign lands. Foreigners say China has many fleas, but the West also has fleas.”
Personal Limitation
Direct Translation: Self-Doubt/Personal Limitation
Being limited by one’s own knowledge level, leading to the conclusion that something must be wrong or false.
When discussing certain complex topics, such as “biological evolution and natural selection,” one needs a basic knowledge base on the subject. Simply because one lacks this knowledge, one assumes that these theories must be wrong—this is a fallacy.
Example: Xiao Ming draws a fish and a human and disdainfully asks Xiao Qiang, “Look at these two creatures. Do you really think I would be stupid enough to believe that a fish can randomly transform into a human over time?”
Partial Exception
When a view is proven wrong, changing the rules or using a specific exception to excuse the error.
Foolish humans are always reluctant to admit they are wrong. Not only are they unwilling to improve their understanding of the problem, but they sometimes stubbornly try to find ways to prove their own correctness. The common method is to find a rationalizing reason for their mistake after the fact. It is easy to find a reason to believe in what we are accustomed to, but the real difficulty lies in how we test our own worldview after others have confirmed our error, and how we correct our thoughts.
Example: Xiao Ming claims he can predict the future. When everyone tests his predictions under reasonable scientific conditions, he retreats. Xiao Ming says you must first believe that he has predictive ability before you can see his predictions come true.
Presupposition Questioning
Also called “Leading Questioning.” This involves pre-inserting an assumption into the question, making it so that the respondent, regardless of how they answer, appears flawed.
Presupposition questioning is particularly effective in undermining rational debate because it is provocative. The respondent is often forced to panic and defend themselves.
Example: Xiao Mei and Xiao Li both like Ah Hui. One time, while Ah Hui was present, Xiao Mei deliberately asked Xiao Li in a curious tone: “Xiao Li, have you stopped gambling now?”
Burden of Proof
Assuming that the responsibility of providing evidence lies with the person questioning the view, rather than the person proposing it.
The proponent should be the one to provide the evidence; the responsibility should not be thrown onto the person who doubts the argument. Just because a view cannot be falsified or a counterexample cannot be produced does not automatically prove that the view is reasonable or credible. At the same time, we must clearly understand that “nothing is absolute,” so we need to strengthen the credibility of the argument based on known evidence. Dismissing a view simply because it hasn’t been proven is also a form of inferential fallacy.
Example: Xiao Qiang says he can see ghosts, and since other people cannot see ghosts, that doesn’t prove whether his claim is true or not.
Double Entendre
Using a statement with a double meaning or an ambiguous statement that contains ambiguity to mislead or distort facts.
Politicians often utilize ambiguous statements, and when exposed, they point out that what they said was not entirely a lie from a theoretical standpoint. But in essence, these statements are misleading from the very beginning.
Example: Zhuang asks A Cong: “You keep saying you’ll treat me to a meal. When will you fulfill that promise?” A Cong replies: “I’ll go buy you a packet of instant noodles in a bit.”
Gambler’s Fallacy
Believing that there are controllable patterns in independent, random events.
It is like the win rate of a roulette wheel; generally speaking, the probability of a single repeated result occurring is extremely low, and the location of the ball each time is completely unrelated to the previous time. For example, although there is a tiny possibility of twenty consecutive coin flips all landing on heads, the probability of each individual flip landing on heads is still 50/50, and this probability is not affected by the previous flips.
Example: When rolling dice, six consecutive “Big” numbers appear. Zhuang believes that the next roll must definitely be “Small.” As a result, he loses everything.
Blind Conformity (Bandwagon)
Direct Translation: Bandwagon Definition: Believing that something is correct simply because many people are doing or agreeing with it.
The fallacy of this view is that the popularity or acceptance of something is completely unrelated to whether it is right or wrong. If we decide right or wrong based on popular acceptance, then in the era when people believed the Earth was flat, the Earth should have been flat.
Example: Drunken Old Wang points at Old Zhang and says, “If monsters are just foolish superstitions, why do so many people still believe they truly exist?”
Note: The original English term for this fallacy, “bandwagon,” generally refers to the magnificent carriage carrying a band in a circus parade, which has evolved into the derived meaning of “a trend or fashion accepted by the public.”
Appeal to Authority
The belief that what the authority says must be correct.
It is important to remember that this fallacy does not mean that the claims of a reasonable expert or scientific consensus are unimportant; rather, it means that appealing to authority is not a valid form of argumentation, and the authority’s opinion can be completely wrong. Therefore, whether someone is an authority or not has no essential impact on whether their claim is true. However, unless a person possesses a level of understanding or empirical evidence similar to that of an expert, it is unreasonable to disregard the statement of someone with deep knowledge.
Example: Old Zhang doesn’t know how to defend his stance that evolution “is not real,” so he says, “I know a famous scientist, Zhuang Zhuang, who also questions evolution!” In fact, Zhuang Zhuang is a successful fitness coach.
Hasty Generalization
Direct Translation: Composition/Division (or: Generalizing from the Partial)
Assuming that a local characteristic of something is the overall characteristic of that thing, or that it applies to other parts of the thing; or that the overall characteristic of an object must apply to each of its independent parts.
This fallacy is also called the “Fallacy of Composition/Division.” Usually, when something is correct for a part, it is indeed possible that it applies to the whole, and vice versa—like saying, “Peering into a tube, one can see a glimpse.” But the key point is whether there is effective evidence to show that the situation is truly like that. Simply observing certain consistencies in a thing may lead to biased thinking, causing us to assume that the consistency exists where it might not actually exist.
Example: Xiao Cong is a precocious child with logical thinking. He knows that atoms, which are invisible to the naked eye, compose him, so he concludes that he cannot be seen. Unfortunately, despite his thoughts, he still lost the game of hide-and-seek.
Purifying the Argument
Direct Translation: Not a True Scotsman (or: Purifying the Premise)
The act of adding premises after the fact to constantly refine or “purify” the argument, in order to refute criticism of its flaws.
In this form of flawed reasoning, no matter how convincing the evidence is for someone’s belief, simply changing the standard can make the evidence inapplicable to the fabricated so-called “true” example. This post-hoc rationalization is a way of escaping rational criticism of one’s own argument.
Example: A Liang says that Guangdong people only eat sweet tofu pudding. A Hui says that he is a Guangdong person, but he eats savory tofu pudding. A Liang gets particularly angry and says to A Hui: “A true Guangdong person only eats sweet tofu pudding!”
Note: The original English term for this fallacy is “no true Scotsman,” which means “not a true Scotsman.” It comes from the work Thinking about Thinking by Professor Anthony Flew, published in 1975, where he cited a Scotsman who, in order to deny that Scotsmen commit serious crimes, said, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”
Origin Determinism
Direct Translation: Genetic Determinism (or: Determinism of Origin)
Judging the good or bad, right or wrong of something based on its source or the proponent’s origin.
It is also called genetic determinism: good people and bad people are predetermined in their genes, such as, “You are inherently a bad person, so you are destined only to do bad things and never do good things.” This attempts to evade positive debate by focusing on the origin of a person or thing. Similar to the “Ad Hominem” fallacy, it uses known negative perceptions to attack and tarnish the opponent’s view, yet it doesn’t actually explain what is wrong with the opponent’s argument.
Example: A news channel plays a seismic alert message. Xiao Liang comforts Xiao Hong, saying, “We all know that the news channel, besides celebrity gossip, never broadcasts serious news.”
False Dilemma
Only offering two options as choices while completely ignoring the existence of other possibilities.
It is also called “Either/Or,” “Dilemma Reasoning,” or “False Reasoning.” This insidious strategy superficially presents a logical argument, but upon closer inspection, one can find that there are many more possibilities than the binary choices presented. The binary, black-or-white mindset does not allow for the existence of various variables, conditions, and contexts beyond two possibilities. It only misleads the argument and blocks rational, honest debate.
Example: The Supreme Commander says: “Anyone who doesn’t support his grand blueprint of ‘Making America Great Again’ is an enemy of America.”
Circular Reasoning
The premise of the argument already contains the conclusion.
This type of self-contained logic is usually rooted in deep-seated paranoid assumptions. For example, the cliché: “The main reason circular reasoning is bad is because it is bad.”
Example: The Bullshit Journal is flawless. We know this because The Bullshit Journal itself once stated: “Everything in The Bullshit Journal is true and beautiful; you must not have any doubts.”
Naturalism
Simply because something is “natural,” one assumes it is automatically perfect, and its rationality is undeniable.
Many naturally occurring things are considered beneficial, which can cause our cognition to become biased. Nature itself does not make things good or bad. For instance, killing in nature can be seen as very “natural,” but this does not mean that killing is beneficial or rational.
Example: Zhuang believes in “natural remedies,” so when he has a cold or fever, he only drinks boiled water, and when he is sick, he only eats herbs. Because he believes that boiled water or herbs are more natural than chemically synthesized drugs, they must be more beneficial.
Hearsay
Using personal experience or isolated examples to replace undeniable evidence or sound reasoning.
People are usually more inclined to believe the statements of others than to understand complex data and changes as a whole. Quantitative scientific measurement is almost always more accurate than personal perception and experience, but we tend to trust things that feel tangible to us, and what people we trust say, rather than the reality presented by what looks more “abstract” statistics.
Example: Xiao Jie’s grandfather smokes 30 cigarettes a day and still lives to 97 years old. Therefore, Xiao Jie concludes that the research findings proving a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer cannot be trusted.
Causal Displacement
Direct Translation: Texas Sharpshooter Definition: Only selecting evidence that favors oneself or fits one’s hypothesis.
Although shooting first and then drawing a target center on the bullet hole makes the shooter look like a sharpshooter, there is no necessary causal relationship between the bullet hitting the bullseye and the shooter being a sharpshooter.
Example: Coca-Cola claims that research shows that in the five countries where Coca-Cola sells the most, three of those countries are among the top ten globally for average IQ. Therefore, drinking Coca-Cola can increase IQ.
Note: The original English term for this fallacy is “the Texas sharpshooter,” referring to a Texas shooter in a fable who shoots first and then draws a target on the bullet hole.
Middle Ground
The compromise or intermediate position between two extremes, which must be the location of the truth.
Often, the truth does lie between two extremes, but this can also cause us to develop a cognitive bias: sometimes something is fundamentally wrong, even if it is compromised. The middle ground can still be a fallacy.
Example: Xiao Li firmly believes that vaccination causes autism in children, but A Cong, her friend who likes research, says that this claim has been scientifically proven to be false. Then their friend Xiao Mei proposes a compromise argument: Vaccination inevitably causes certain types of autism, not all types of autism.