Post hoc and non sequitur fallacies both involve the concept of “following.” However, post hoc fallacies are related to the chronological sequence of events, whereas non sequitur fallacies are related to the logical connection between statements.
To accurately distinguish between the two fallacies, assess whether the argument’s focus is chronological (post hoc) or logical (non sequitur).
Continue reading: What is the difference between the post hoc fallacy and the non sequitur fallacy?
The following strategies can help you avoid committing the false dilemma fallacy:
- Explore alternatives: Make a habit of considering a range of possible options, including the less obvious and less popular possibilities.
- Avoid extremes: Refrain from framing arguments or choices in an overly polarized or binary manner.
- Use nuanced language: Use language that reflects the complexity of the issue and avoids oversimplification.
- Seek common ground: Look for areas of agreement and compromise to bridge differences.
Continue reading: How do I avoid the false dilemma fallacy?
The false dilemma fallacy artificially limits choices, creating a situation where it seems there are only two mutually exclusive options. This fallacy rules out the possibility of any alternative, including combined or middle-ground solutions.
Continue reading: How does the false dilemma fallacy work?
The false dilemma fallacy is also known as the false dichotomy, false binary, or either-or fallacy.
Continue reading: What is another name for false dilemma fallacy?
The appeal to purity fallacy and the no true Scotsman fallacy are closely related, but the appeal to purity fallacy is broader:
- Appeal to purity fallacies dismiss deviations from an idealized form, rejecting any variation or nuance within a belief system or identity.
- No true Scotsman fallacies are a type of appeal to purity that involves dismissing counterexamples to defend a specific claim.
Continue reading: What is the appeal to purity fallacy?
No true Scotsman arguments are fallacious because they arbitrarily redefine criteria to exclude counterexamples rather than addressing the substance of counterarguments. This technique allows one to avoid engaging with evidence in an intellectually dishonest manner, rendering the debate useless.
Continue reading: Why is no true Scotsman a fallacy?
The no true Scotsman fallacy is inherently fallacious when used to arbitrarily dismiss counterexamples that disprove a general claim. However, arguments that look similar at a glance aren’t always fallacious. The soundness or fallaciousness of the argument depends on the nature of the claim and the definitions involved.
If a claim is made about a category based on well-defined, objective, and agreed-upon criteria, then refining a definition to exclude a counterexample that doesn’t meet those criteria typically isn’t considered fallacious.
Continue reading: Is no true Scotsman always a fallacy?
Arguments that commit logical fallacies can be misleading because they typically resemble valid or sound arguments on a superficial level, while they actually present conclusions that aren’t adequately supported by their premises.
Fallacious arguments are often effective at misleading an audience because they fall into convincing patterns of errors that people tend to make based on emotional instincts, cognitive biases, and heuristic decision-making patterns.
Continue reading: Why are fallacies misleading?
Fallacies of relevance, also known as red herring fallacies, divert attention from the core issues of an argument, dismissing an opposing view based on irrelevant information. Examples include the following:
Continue reading: What are fallacies of relevance?
Genetic fallacies are similar to ad hominem fallacies in that they are both fallacies of relevance that focus on the source of an argument rather than criticizing it in terms of facts and reasoning. However, there is a difference:
- Ad hominem fallacies focus on whoever is currently presenting an argument as the sole basis for rejecting it.
- Genetic fallacies focus on the original sources of an argument (e.g., people, cultures, movements) as the sole basis for rejecting it.
Continue reading: What is the difference between the ad hominem fallacy and the genetic fallacy?
