The appeal to ignorance fallacy can take two forms:
- Arguing that a claim is true because it has not been proven false (e.g., “Ghosts are real because science has never disproved their existence.”)
- Arguing that a claim is false because it has not been proven true (e.g., “We’ve found no clear evidence of life on other planets, so that proves we’re alone in the universe.”)
Both forms of the fallacy make the same essential error, misconstruing the absence of contrary evidence as definitive proof.
Continue reading: What are the two forms of the appeal to ignorance fallacy?
The hasty generalization fallacy and the appeal to anecdote differ in scope and in the type of evidence used to draw conclusions:
- The hasty generalization fallacy involves drawing a far-reaching conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample of data, regardless of the type of evidence.
- An appeal to anecdote is a specific type of hasty generalization that relies on personal stories or isolated instances as the sole evidence to support a broad conclusion.
Continue reading: What is the difference between the hasty generalization fallacy and the anecdotal evidence fallacy?
A fallacy that contrasts with hasty generalization fallacy is the slothful induction fallacy.
- Hasty generalizations involve drawing premature conclusions with limited evidence.
- Slothful induction, in contrast, is the failure to draw warranted conclusions despite sufficient evidence, often because of preexisting biases and assumptions.
Continue reading: What is the opposite of the hasty generalization fallacy?
To avoid the hasty generalization fallacy, apply critical thinking and scrutinize evidence carefully, using the following strategies:
- Select data samples that meet statistical criteria for representativeness.
- Question underlying assumptions and explore diverse viewpoints.
- Recognize and mitigate personal biases and prejudices.
Continue reading: How can you avoid the hasty generalization fallacy?
Several fallacies are related to the appeal to pity fallacy, including the following:
- Red herring fallacy: Diverts from the main argument with irrelevant distractions; encompasses the appeal to pity among other many fallacies
- Appeal to emotion fallacy: Evokes emotions rather than presenting evidence and reasoning; the appeal to pity is a subtype
- Appeal to fear: Distracts from the core issues of an argument by focusing on fear; similar to the appeal to pity but focuses on a different emotion
Continue reading: What are some other common fallacies related to the appeal to pity fallacy?
The appeal to pity fallacy is also known as argumentum ad misericordiam, which is Latin for “argument from compassion or pity.” It involves evoking sympathy to sidestep the core issues of an argument and avoid presenting solid evidence or reasoning.
Continue reading: What is argumentum ad misericordiam?
The appeal to pity fallacy is a specific type of red herring fallacy. A red herring fallacy introduces irrelevant information that diverts attention from the main subject. The appeal to pity fallacy distracts specifically by evoking feelings of sympathy or guilt in an audience.
Continue reading: What is the difference between the appeal to pity fallacy and red herring fallacy?
The following example of an appeal to pity fallacy demonstrates how this fallacy replaces reasoned analysis with sympathy-inducing imagery:
Legislators debate a proposed bill that would require users to register online accounts with their legal names and government-issued IDs. A proponent of the bill tells the story of one teenager who was bullied online and argues, “Too many of our young people are bullied online by anonymous users, and too many of their lives have been ruined. We must protect our children from such dangers if we have any humanity.”
This example of an appeal to pity fallacy focuses exclusively on descriptions of online bullying and its effects on children without addressing the proposed bill’s logistics, potential efficacy, or implications for free speech and privacy.
Continue reading: What is an example of appeal to pity fallacy?
The cherry picking fallacy is similar to the hasty generalization fallacy and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, which also involve arguing from poorly chosen data. However, there are key differences:
- Cherry-picking: Selectively presenting data that supports an argument while ignoring contrary evidence
- Hasty generalization fallacy: Drawing broad conclusions from small or unrepresentative data samples without sufficient evidence
- Texas sharpshooter fallacy: Forming a theory after noticing specific data points, and then focusing only on information that fits this theory while ignoring the rest
Continue reading: What fallacies are similar to cherry picking?
Both the cherry-picking fallacy and card stacking (sometimes called stacking the deck) mislead by presenting one-sided information, but while the two can overlap, there are key differences:
- Cherry picking fallacy: In reasoning and argumentation, choosing data that supports a certain conclusion while ignoring contradictory data
- Card stacking: In propaganda, shaping public perceptions through messaging that emphasizes favorable information and minimizes negative details
While card stacking is deliberate, committing the cherry picking fallacy doesn’t require intentionality.
Continue reading: What’s the difference between the cherry picking fallacy and card stacking?
