Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies

Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies ~ Non-Support


Contents

  • How to Use This Guide
  • Search
  • Privacy and Security
  • Contact
  • Home Page
  • All Fallacies
  • The Fallacies

  • False Dilemma
  • Argument From Ignorance
  • Slippery Slope
  • Complex Question
  • Appeal to Force
  • Appeal to Pity
  • Appeal to Consequences
  • Prejudicial Language
  • Appeal to Popularity
  • Anonymous Authorities
  • Coincidental Correlation
  • Attacking the Person
  • Appeal to Authority
  • Converse Accident
  • Style Over Substance
  • Unrepresentative Sample
  • Hasty Generalization
  • False Analogy
  • Slothful Induction
  • Fallacy of Exclusion
  • Accident
  • Joint Effect
  • Genuine but Insignificant Cause
  • Wrong Direction
  • Complex Cause
  • Begging the Question
  • Irrelevant Conclusion
  • Straw Man
  • Equivocation
  • Amphiboly
  • Accent
  • Composition
  • Division
  • Affirming the Consequent
  • Denying the Antecedent
  • Inconsistency
  • Fallacy of Four Terms
  • Undistributed Middle
  • Illicit Major
  • Illicit Minor
  • Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
  • Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise
  • Existential Fallacy
  • Subverted Support
  • Non-Support
  • Untestability
  • Limited Scope
  • Limited Depth
  • Too Broad
  • Too Narrow
  • Non-Support

    Category:

    Definition: Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased

    Examples:

    Proof:

    An explanation is intended to explain who some phenomenon happens. In this case, there is evidence that the phenomenon occurred, but it is trumped up, biased or ad hoc evidence.

    Identify the phenomenon which is being explained. Show that the evidence advanced to support the existence of the phenomenon was manipulated in some way. Cedarblom and Paulsen: 160


    Created by Stephen Downes, Copyright 2023 CC By-NC-SA