Talk:List of fallacies

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of fallacies article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 6 months

Lists Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Foregone conclusion AKA self-evident truth

This one seem to be missing, and foregone conclusion and self-evident truth and self evident truth are all red-linked. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how these are fallacies, and "foregone conclusion" and "self-evident truth" are clearly not synonymous.

That being said, the latter now redirects to "self-evidence". Paradoctor (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That still leaves a curious red link. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know something I don't? To the best of my current knowledge, "foregone conclusion" could at most be a WP:DICDEF. There are a ton of mentions here, but nothing suitable to redirect to. Paradoctor (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't; I'm just surprised that after all this time we don't have something clear to redirect to. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just what I mean. Why are you surprised? There is nothing encyclopedic about the term, so why should there be information about it here, and not just on Wiktionary? 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because one of the definitions is a conclusion arrived at without due/any consideration, this appears (in that sense of the term) to be a type of fallacy, and it seems probable to me that some sources somewhere address it as one (perhaps under another name we've already catalogued). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. For one, there need not be argument involved at all. If you know that the majority in a group wants X, then it is a foregone conclusion that the outcome of a simple majority vote will be X.

When the conclusion is determined by sound reasoning, then an outsider with relevant foreknowledge may view the outcome as a foregone conclusion. Lastly, while you seem to think of cherry picking, I see no reason why any number of other fallacies may lead to the foregone conclusion. If you can predict the form argumentative failure will take, the conclusion will be foregone, whatever fallacies are involved. Paradoctor (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man

I think we can do much better than this confusing mess:

Straw man fallacy – misrepresenting an opponent's argument by broadening or narrowing the scope of a premise and/or refuting a weaker version of their argument (e.g.: If person A says that "killing animals is wrong because we are animals too" and person B replies "It is not true that humans have no moral worth", then that would be a strawman since person A has not asserted that humans have no moral worth, rather that the moral worth of animals and humans are equivalent.)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing because it is wrong. The implicit premise is "killing animals is wrong". "Moral worth" is an ill-defined concept, and it's not even used correctly here.

So I nuked it. If anyone wants an example, it should be from a relevant textbook. Paradoctor (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paper tiger ?

isn't that a fallacy?

Shouldn't that also be in the Paper tiger (disambiguation)?

Thy SvenAERTS (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention of "fallacy" at paper tiger. Is there any source for "paper tiger fallacy", at all? Paradoctor (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kafkatrapping

There are three sources on this subject and neither appears to be from a reliable source. Natrass is an economist, and therefore not a subject matter expert. McElroy is an "individualist feminist" with some fringe theories, if her wikipedia article is anything to go by, and the third source should be disqualified just based on the choice of it's title. It also doesn't help that a "Kafka trap" is something that's frequently referenced by people on the alt right who deny that they're alt right. This needs better sources. Primarily opinion from actual subject matter experts on whether or not kafkatrapping is even real, or if it's something made up by 4chan. 46.97.170.155 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. I've deleted the entry for lack of academic sources. I put "cognitive bias" rather than "fallacy" in the edit summary, but that's just because the coffee hasn't kicked in yet. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undone my deletion because I'd forgotten this has been previously discussed. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, refreshing my memory of the prior discussion on this Talk page: User:Guarapiranga and I were deadlocked, so we got a third opinion, who decisively said "Cut the chaff. And if it's not in OED it shouldn't even by on Wiktionary IMO". I also noted that two out of the three sources offered do not even describe Kafkatrapping as a fallacy. So I take it that it's okay to remove the entry. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]