ONE OF SEVEN WAYS OF SEEING
Spot the gaps between a persuasive argument and a sound one.
The fallacy of confusing unconditional life expectancy (at birth) with conditional life expectancy (given you have reached a certain age), leading to incorrect planning and predictions.
Taleb uses conflation to describe confusing an idea or theory with the practical result or payoff associated with it. Asymmetries can make a theory’s properties a poor guide to the consequences of acting on it.
A logical fallacy in which an argument contains a self-contradiction, making it impossible for it to be true. It occurs when the argument asserts something that contradicts its own terms or conditions.
The fallacy of confusing an explanation for an excuse occurs when one mistakenly assumes that providing an account of why something happened is an attempt to justify it. This leads to misinterpretation, particularly in legal, emotional, and political arguments.
Treating an explanation of a fact as if it were a justification of the fact, a valid reason for the fact, or evidence for the fact.
The conjunction fallacy occurs when people judge that a specific combination of events is more probable than a single general event, violating the conjunction rule. It is considered a genuine fallacy when respondents acknowledge their error after explanation, distinguishing it from mere misunderstandings.
A logical fallacy where a claim is defended by asserting that evidence against it is part of a cover-up, and challenges to that assertion are taken as further proof of the conspiracy. It exploits cognitive biases to maintain beliefs despite contradictory facts.
Converse accident is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone generalizes from one or a few specific cases to a broad, sweeping conclusion. This fallacy is particularly harmful because it often underlies racist, sexist, and other prejudiced beliefs by mistaking an exception for a rule.
Affirming the consequent treats an implication as reversible: if A implies B and B is true, it concludes that A must be true. The conclusion does not follow unless there is an independent reason to rule out B without A.
A logical fallacy where the converse of a true conditional statement is assumed to also be true, leading to an invalid inference.
A converse error treats a rule as equivalent to its reversal. For general claims, the original rule may hold while its converse fails, or vice versa; both may also hold or both fail. A necessary condition is not automatically sufficient.
The principle that an observed association between two variables does not prove a cause-and-effect relationship. The logical fallacy occurs when one incorrectly infers causality from correlation alone.
A fallacy where the abundance of unreliable evidence for a conclusion is used as a reason to believe that some evidence must be reliable. It mistakenly treats evidence quality as a matter of chance, ignoring that debunking a few examples can explain all similar claims.
The cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy occurs when a causal relationship is assumed between two events simply because they occur simultaneously, without sufficient evidence. It warns that correlation does not imply causation.
Cheng describes arguments in which someone replaces a stated position with a harsher supposedly equivalent claim, then attacks the speaker for it. Checking the alleged equivalence can expose where the accusation goes beyond what was said.
The definist fallacy involves defining a concept in terms of another with which it is not clearly synonymous, often as a persuasive definition, or insisting on a clear definition before discussion. It is a tactic used to make an argument seem more persuasive by using loaded or vague definitions.
The invalid inference that if two statements cannot both be true and one is false, the other must be true. Both statements could be false.
A logical fallacy where one incorrectly concludes that if the antecedent of a conditional statement is false, then the consequent must also be false, ignoring other possible conditions.
The fallacy of introducing a third alternative when a genuine binary choice exists, typically to avoid making a difficult decision or answering a direct yes/no question.
A claim of diminished responsibility can fail when the proposed excuse does not meet its own conditions. Manninen examines appeals to orders, social pressure, and self-induced impairment, asking whether the person retained a meaningful choice and what distinguishes an explanation of conduct from an excuse for it.
The disjunction fallacy occurs when people judge a specific category (e.g., 'Oded studies physics') as more probable than its superordinate inclusive category (e.g., 'Oded studies one of the natural sciences'), violating probability rules. Research shows this effect is influenced by representativeness and basic-level categorization.
The assertion that a position is different from another position based on language, when in fact both positions are exactly the same in practice or practical terms.
Taleb argues that visible efficiency gains can conceal larger losses when optimization makes a system fragile. A cost-benefit comparison should consider exposure to errors and disruptions as well as routine operating costs.
Equivocation occurs when an argument relies on a word or phrase changing meaning between its premises and conclusion. Defining the term consistently can expose the gap in the reasoning.
The essentializing fallacy occurs when one claims that because something was a certain way at one point, it will always be that way, often relying on stereotypes or the notion of fixed essences without evidence.
The etymological fallacy is the mistaken belief that a word's historical origin (etymon) determines its current meaning, ignoring the natural evolution of language. It is often used to defend offensive terms or make arguments based on outdated definitions.
A euphemism is a delicate, indirect, inoffensive, or vague word or phrase used to replace one that is unpleasant, blunt, offensive, or graphic. It creates emotional distance and is fallacious when intentionally used to conceal truth and obscure meaning, enabling people to avoid reality.
A standard categorical syllogism with two negative premises is invalid. Excluding each extreme term from a middle term does not establish the categorical relation between the extremes needed for a conclusion.
The existential fallacy occurs when we mistakenly assume that a class or group has members, i.e., when universal statements are wrongly taken to imply existence. It is a formal fallacy in syllogistic logic where universal premises do not validly lead to a particular conclusion that asserts existence.
Extended Analogy is a logical fallacy that occurs when two things that are each analogous to a third are incorrectly concluded to be analogous to each other. A common example is the ad Hitlerum fallacy, which associates someone with Hitler based on a benign similarity.
The Failure to Elucidate fallacy occurs when a definition is more difficult to understand than the term it is meant to clarify, often relying on obscure language, circular reasoning, or unhelpful synonyms.
A logical fallacy where implausibly precise statistics are used to give an appearance of truth and certainty, or where negligible differences in data are used to draw incorrect inferences.
A category of logical fallacies where arguments introduce unwarranted or irrelevant elements, violating the principle of not claiming more than is known.
A fallacy is an error in reasoning where a conclusion does not properly follow from its premises, often occurring unintentionally or with deceptive intent.
A categorical syllogism commits the undistributed-middle fallacy when its middle term is not distributed in either premise. Sharing a category does not establish the relationship asserted in the conclusion.
The fallacy of composition occurs when one incorrectly infers that the characteristics, attributes, or features of individuals comprising some group will also be found in the group as a whole.
The fallacy of division occurs when it is incorrectly inferred that characteristics of a group apply to its individual members or parts.
A categorical syllogism links two terms through a shared middle term. The fallacy of four terms occurs when an argument presented in this form contains a fourth term—sometimes because the supposed middle term changes meaning between premises—so the intended link fails.
The fallacy of necessity confuses a conclusion that follows from the premises with a claim that the conclusion must hold in every possible circumstance. Ordinary facts can support a valid deduction without becoming necessary truths.
The fallacy of the false cause occurs when an argument assumes a causal relationship between two events without sufficient evidence, often mistaking correlation or coincidence for causation.
This fallacy assumes that an event has only one cause, ignoring the possibility of multiple contributing factors. It oversimplifies complex situations by attributing a single reason.
A prediction that an event will happen leaves out how much it could matter. In fat-tailed settings, estimating the probability of a war or financial loss does not tell you the scale of its consequences.
The fallacy treats speculation about the future or an unobserved alternative as an established fact. A forecast or counterfactual is not automatically fallacious; its uncertainty and supporting evidence matter.
The false attribution fallacy occurs when an argument appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased, or fabricated source to support a claim, thereby weakening the argument's credibility.
The false cause fallacy occurs when a real or perceived relationship between variables is taken as evidence that one causes the other, often confusing correlation with causation.
The fallacy of ignoring common cause occurs when a correlation between two variables is assumed to be causal, while a third variable that causes both is overlooked. This leads to mistaken causal inferences and is a form of the false cause fallacy.
False Conversion is a formal fallacy where the subject and predicate of a proposition are incorrectly switched in the conclusion, specifically for propositions of type 'A' (all) or type 'O' (some...not).
A false dichotomy presents two options as the only possibilities when there are actually more. It is a logical fallacy that often arises from a false equivalence between A and not-B, when in reality neither or both might be true.
A false dilemma presents a limited set of alternatives as exhaustive when other relevant possibilities exist. It often takes an either-or form, but the list can contain more options. A genuinely restricted choice or a stated boundary is not, by itself, a false dilemma.
The false effect fallacy occurs when an effect is incorrectly assumed from a cause, often based on a mistaken belief about what the cause produces, without proper evidence or justification.
False equivalence treats statements, positions, or situations as interchangeable while overlooking differences that matter. Cheng’s examples show how this can distort a nuanced position and make it easier to attack.
An analogy can mislead when it treats two situations as alike in a respect that does not support the argument. Identify the principle behind the comparison and ask whether the relevant similarities hold.
Accusing someone of false equivalence when their analogy is actually valid is itself a fallacy. The burden is on the critic to show that the analogy breaks down on a crucial point, not merely that it is not identical.
The fallacy of assuming a linear relationship between variables when the true relationship is nonlinear, often leading to flawed reasoning that more or less of something is always better, ignoring optimal points.
A logical fallacy where old footage or information is presented as if it were current, misleading audiences about its true context and meaning.
Offering a bizarre (far-fetched) hypothesis as the correct explanation without first ruling out more mundane explanations.
A faulty comparison relates things that are not relevant to each other, making one seem more or less desirable than it really is.
This logical fallacy occurs when an argument relies on an incorrect or misunderstood implication, often leading to a straw man. The example of white privilege shows how a false premise (if some black people are better off, then white privilege doesn't exist) can be attacked instead of the actual claim.
The free speech fallacy treats a right to express a view as immunity from criticism. Challenging the reasons for a claim is itself an exercise of expression; feeling criticized does not, by itself, establish censorship.
The Galileo gambit treats ridicule or rejection as evidence that a theory is correct: Galileo was opposed and later vindicated, so the speaker expects the same vindication. That analogy leaves out the evidence for each theory. Dissent can be right, but being criticized does not establish it.