Logical Fallacies Explained: 21 Common Thinking Traps That Distort Truth

In this episode of The Perspicacious Perspective, I break down 21 of the most common logical fallacies that distort reasoning, debates, and everyday decision-making. From obvious traps like Ad Hominem attacks and Straw Man arguments to subtler pitfalls like the Accent Fallacy and Sunk Cost Fallacy, I explain what each fallacy is, why it matters, and how to spot it in conversations, media, and online debates.

I give real-world examples and practical advice so you can sharpen your critical thinking, avoid manipulation, and stop falling for bad arguments. Whether you want to improve your logic skills, navigate debates confidently, or protect yourself from persuasive nonsense, this episode equips you with the tools to think clearly and critically.

Logical Fallacies Master List: 

https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm

1. Ad Hominem

2. Straw Man

3. Appeal to Ignorance / Argument from Ignorance

4. Slippery Slope

5. Circular Reasoning

6. Hasty Generalisation

7. Post Hoc / False Cause

8. Red Herring

9. Appeal to Authority

10. Appeal to Emotion

11. Tu Quoque

12. Appeal to Tradition

13. Appeal to Consequences

14. Personal Incredulity

15. Appeal to Spite

16. Texas Sharpshooter

17. Oversimplication

18. Moving the Goalposts

19. Accent Fallacy

20. Sunk Cost Fallacy

21. Nirvana fallacy

Transcript

Welcome to the Perspicacious Perspective.

Since the scientific revolution in the West, logical fallacies have been used to call out fake and deceptive arguments that seem superficially sound.

Logical fallacies can be found in persuasive rhetoric and if gone unchecked, can lead to large swathes of the population believing something that is untrue.

It’s important for you to consider that there was once a time that people didn’t criticise the government, the religious establishment or anyone who was responsible for leading and governing the country in the West. Well you couldn’t, if you did, you could be exiled, incarcerated or killed.

If you ever travel outside the West, you’ll learn quickly that the ability to criticise the government is a privilege and not one that should be taken for granted at all.

Understanding logical fallacies will help you to criticise appropriately as we’re all emotional creatures who are vulnerable to the deception that logical fallacies can bring about.

If you wanna operate as a sound logical thinking machine then it’s necessary to familiarise with as many logical fallacies as you can. There are actually over 100 logical fallacies out there. To be honest, many of them overlap and many of them are the same but perhaps go by different names.  

Now I’m not gonna go through all of them on this episode but I’m gonna give you 21 common logical fallacies that people are vulnerable to committing, especially in this day and age.

Understanding the 21 logical fallacies I’m about to go through will help you to extrapolate and work out the other logical fallacies not mentioned in this episode. If anything, it will change the way you approach logic, change the way you argue, make you a much better critical thinker, and who knows, you might even be able to discover new logical fallacies no one’s ever picked up before.

Ad Hominem

1.        The first logical fallacy is probably the most notorious considering how often it’s committed. It’s usually the point of the debate or argument that one of the interlocuters realises they’re losing the debate, so they start attacking the person rather than the argument. This logical fallacy is called the Ad Hominem and is often committed when a debate or argument gets personal. Let’s imagine you and I were debating about climate change and you turn around and say “You can’t trust his opinion on climate change; he’s not even a scientist.”. The implication here would be that I need to be a scientist to have valid arguments about climate change which obviously isn’t true. I could be someone who has looked at research around climate change autodidactically (which means I learned how to do the research myself), and therefore my opinion on climate change is just as valid as a scientist’s opinion on climate change. If you ever find yourself committing this logical fallacy, you probably lost and you probably need to grow the fuck up and learn how to argue. Whenever you get into an intellectual debate, you should always focus on the argument at hand no matter how much you hate your interlocutor.

Straw Man

2.        The Straw Man is another popular logical fallacy. Picture a man made of straw, like a scarecrow, and instead of arguing with me, your interlocutor, you basically argue with the scarecrow instead- who is inanimate, and full of straw. So you do this by listening to my argument, and rather than responding to my argument directly, to make yourself seem like you can keep up with the argument, or to prevent yourself from looking like you’re losing the argument, you’ll pick something else to argue about instead. Let’s say you and I are debating about gun control in the US. My argument is that we should have stricter gun control in the US. You then straw-man my argument by saying I want to remove everyone’s guns and abolish the Second Amendment. So in line with the analogy, my argument is that we should have stricter gun control in the US. The Straw Man- or the scarecrow’s argument is that we should remove everyone’s guns and abolish the Second Amendment. So now you’re debating with the scarecrow- not me, since it was never my argument that everyone’s guns should be removed and it was never my argument that the Second Amendment should be abolished. Get it? This is another commonly used tactic to digress from the argument at hand usually because you don’t have any good arguments to counter-argue my original proposition.

Appeal to Ignorance / Argument from Ignorance

3.        At number 3 is Appeal to Ignorance or otherwise known as Argument from Ignorance. It’s when you claim something must be true because it hasn’t yet been proven to be false. For example, if you took the position that because nobody has proven that aliens don’t exist, they must be real, you would be committing an Appeal to Ignorance or an Argument from Ignorance. The same could be true the other way round. If you argued that aliens mustn’t be real since nobody has proven they exist, you would still be committing this logical fallacy. There’s a tacit understanding in logical debate- we don’t know what we don’t know. Not all debates and arguments are about winning, particularly outside competitions. People who genuinely pursue knowledge and the truth engage in these sorts of conversations to get closer to the truth, or rule off things that can’t be true. So when both interlocutors admit there are things we’re too ignorant about to draw conclusions from, it makes for a better logical debate or conversation.

Slippery Slope

4.        At number 4 is the Slippery Slope. It’s when you argue that one small step will inevitably lead to a chain of related negative events. For example, if you argued that if we allow same-sex marriage to be legalised, next people will want to marry their pets. This would be a logical fallacy since we’re not arguing about whether people should be allowed to marry their pets, we’re arguing about whether homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry. Another good example would be me claiming that asylum seekers should be granted asylum in the UK. If you were to argue that we would then be opening the floodgates to illegal immigrants, you would be committing the Slippery Slope fallacy. 

Circular Reasoning

5.        Number 5 is called Circular Reasoning. You claim that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. How can I respond to that? Whatever argument I raise, we’re gonna go in circles till we land back to the same reason you made the argument in the first place- because it says so in the Bible. This is a logical fallacy and we call it Circular Reasoning for a reason. Circular Reasoning has no place for logical debates so if you even find yourself committing this logical fallacy- make sure you have evidence from more than one source.

Hasty Generalisation

6.        This next logical fallacy is a good one because it protects black people. It’s called Hasty Generalisation. I get it… when you see black people on the news in black-on-black gang crime, or you see a black guy shoplifting, or mugging an old lady, it feels good to hate all black people, at least for a minute or two- but you would be committing a logical fallacy here. You would be drawing a broad conclusion based on a small or unrepresentative sample. So as therapeutic as it can be too hate all black people, or Mexicans, or Muslims when you hear about some of the atrocious things committed by these minority groups in the West- try not to hastily generalise.

Post Hoc / False Cause

7.        The Post Hoc or False Cause fallacy comes at number 7 and removes all the superstitious bullshit that people like to claim to be true. If the horse you bet on won the race because you were wearing your lucky socks, then fuck your socks- your socks had nothing to do with the horse winning- obviously. Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B- is logically incorrect which is why it’s been termed as the Post Hoc or False Cause fallacy. Feel free to call out astrologists on this one who can never guess your star sign the first-time round.

Red Herring

8.        At number 8 is the Red Herring. This fallacy is believed to have originated from a practice of using a strong-smelling smoke fish called a kipper to train hounds to follow a scent or distract them from the correct path. If you said “Why worry about police reform when there are people starving in other countries?”, you would be committing this logical fallacy. Another tactic to distract your interlocutor from the main argument being presented.

Appeal to Authority

9.        Appeal to Authority comes in at number 9 and it’s when you use the opinion of an authority in place of a valid argument. So if you and I were in a debate, and you said something like “even Doctor Fauci said we have to be vaccinated to survive the Covid pandemic”, you would be committing the Appeal to Authority fallacy. The authority being Doctor Fauci, and the appeal being a lazy effort to circumvent the necessary research to ascertain if vaccinations are effective against the Corona virus or not.

Appeal to Emotion

10.  At number 10 is Appeal to Emotion. This is a commonly committed fallacy and one that I hate personally. You might have guessed it, but it’s when you manipulate people’s emotions to win an argument rather than using logic. But you’ll never truly know how hard it is to be born a black person in the West! Human beings are intelligent enough to be able to both sympathise and empathise with other human beings and even animals. That’s why we don’t butcher all our cats and dogs- at least in the West- because we have this ability to empathise. Your arguments are hate-speech which incites violence against this minority transgender community! So because there’s another minority of uncivilised, uneducated and violent people, we’re not allowed to make rational arguments that go against the agenda this relatively oppressed minority are putting forward? Sorry, logical fallacy! If you wanna engage in conversation just to be agreed with to feel better about yourself, speak to a bunch of girls. If you wanna engage in a logical discussion to get closer to the truth about a matter, you have to put your emotions aside and address the argument logically. Appeal to Emotion only works in intimate romantic relationships as unfortunately for most men, relationships are about feelings, not facts.

Tu Quoque

11.  Number 11 is the Tu Quoque fallacy. It’s when you try to dismiss someone’s argument because you believe they’re being hypocritical. Let’s say you and I were debating about whether it’s ethical to eat meat. Let’s say my stance is that it’s unethical for humans to eat meat and your stance is that it’s completely ethical for humans to eat meat. Now I eat meat every day. In a logical debate, the fact that I eat meat every day has no bearings on the argument I’m putting forward. If you were to raise the fact that I eat meat every day in a logical debate, you would be committing the Tu Quoque fallacy. Now I do agree with the adage ‘preach what you practice’ and generally, society is always looking for acts of hypocrisy so we can nullify valid arguments people in power are trying to make. It’s difficult to follow someone else’s advice when they’re not following their own advice. With that being said, in a debate that is predicated on logical reasoning, calling someone out based on hypocrisy in relation to the argument they’re putting forward, would qualify as the Tu Quoque fallacy.

Appeal to Tradition

12.  At number 12 I’ve included the Appeal to Tradition fallacy. In the same way that appealing to an authority or an emotion is a logical fallacy, appealing to a tradition is just as much fallacious when it comes to logic. Let’s imagine you argued that we shouldn’t change the voting system because it’s been this way for decades, you would be committing this logical fallacy. It can be hard for humans to be receptive to change which probably explains religion, dogma, rituals and tradition. But appealing to any aspects of religion, dogma, rituals or tradition as an unequivocal truth would be an example of the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

Appeal to Consequences

13.  Appeal to Consequences is the 13th logical fallacy which is when you argue that a belief is true or false based on whether the outcome is desirable or not. For example, if you argued that God must exist, otherwise life would have no meaning, you would be guilty of committing this logical fallacy. It would be nice if we knew for sure that life was full of meaning. Just because it wouldn’t be desirable for life to half no meaning, it’s not evidence that God must exist. This is logically fallacious. Once again, humans have a tendency to appeal to consequences. Have you ever found yourself watching a random sports game then rooting for the underdog even though you know nothing about any of the players or the teams playing against one another? That’s because you know it would be more meaningful for the underdog to win. It’s the same when you hear about the tragic passing of an innocent individual. God must have a plan for them or they must have gone to a better place. It’s a desirable consequence, but it doesn’t make your argument true. And don’t be that dickhead to say ‘that’s logically fallacious’ if you do find yourself in that situation. Just be a normal person and agree, but it’s not bad knowing deep down that the desirable consequence doesn’t make the point about God having a plan for them or them going to a better place true.

Personal Incredulity

14.  The 14th logical fallacy is called Personal Incredulity. It’s when you say something must not be true because you can’t understand it. It’s another important logical fallacy because most of us don’t understand most things in the world. Think about it… what we don’t know is infinite. What we know is finite. My guess is that you know bollocks all about quantum physics. Am I right? Of course I’m right you dumb cunt. I’m kidding, I know nothing about quantum physics either. So that means both of us are dumb cunts. But what we both know as a fact is that quantum physics exists and it explains abstruse and elaborate scientific concepts that you and I can’t comprehend. Let’s imagine two experts were trying to get to the bottom of a complex concept in quantum physics. Neither of them are gonna make any ground-breaking discoveries if they approach the debate with this logical fallacy. There must be an implicit understanding that perhaps one of them isn’t gonna apprehend what might be an extremely complex concept to wrap your head around to make any discoveries in this field. You could say the same about any field of science. This is where understanding logical fallacies come handy. Understanding logical fallacies help us stave off biases when it comes to discovering fundamental truths especially within science. We wouldn’t have been able to make any serendipitous discoveries if we remained dogmatic in our understanding of the things we already knew. That’s why going into a debate, particularly in the scientific fields, with an understanding that just because you don’t understand it, it doesn’t automatically mean it’s not true. If you thought that way, you would be committing the Personal Incredulity fallacy.

Appeal to Spite

15.  If you’re not able to work out the logical fallacies that begin with ‘appeal’ yet, you need to catch up. At 15 we have Appeal to Spite. Just because you dislike someone, it doesn’t make them wrong. It’s a relevant logical fallacy in our times because that’s what world politics seems to be based on. If you truly believe that every single policy Donald Trump has implemented during his tenure in presidency is bad, just because it was implemented by him, you lack critical thinking skills and do not base your opinions on logic, but emotion. There’s many good reasons for not liking Trump, but you ought to be impartial for every policy he puts forward if you like to say you’re a logical person. The same could be said about Biden, Obama, or any leader or politician. Politicians often get a bad reputation particularly in the West as most, if not all politicians have a brazen disregard for their every-day civilians and only operate based on what is politically expedient. But that doesn’t mean every single policy they propose or put forward is bad. So in a sense, you could say this logical fallacy is the obverse to the Appeal to Authority fallacy, that just because someone good or knowledgeable agrees with the argument- it doesn’t make it true, and conversely, just because someone bad agrees with the argument- it doesn’t make it untrue.

Texas Sharpshooter

16.  At number 16 is the Texas Sharpshooter. The best way to explain this logical fallacy is to use the Bible again since this fallacy is all about cherry-picking. Let’s imagine you were arguing that the Bible predicted modern events. Your argument would be selectively highlighting one vague or ambiguous verse that seems to align with a recent event, while ignoring thousands of other verses that don't match anything specific. You would be drawing a "bullseye" around the hits and ignoring the misses—in a classic Texas Sharpshooter style. All-in-all cherry picking data is logically fallacious and it should be avoided in a logical argument.

Oversimplication

17.  Oversimplication is the name of another logical fallacy which comes in at number 17. It’s when you reduce a complex issue to a simple cause. The best way to remember this logical fallacy is by trying to imagine your parents arguing that gun violence happens because of video games. While it’s true that some aspects of gun violence could be attributed to video games, it’s not as simple as coming to the conclusion that video games is responsible for all gun violence. If only it were that simple. It would fail to consider other important factors like gang crime, gun restrictions, recidivism, access to education, police presence, and so forth. Oversimplifying complex issues qualifies as a logical fallacy.

Moving the Goalposts

18.  At number 18 is Moving the Goalposts. You’ve probably heard of this one but if you haven’t, it’s when you change the criteria for proof after it’s been met. Let’s imagine you argued that Trump will never win the election again because he’s not popular enough, then, after winning the election you said ‘just because he won the election it doesn’t prove he’s popular’. You would be committing the Moving the Goalposts logical fallacy here. The logically fallacious part would be to do with his popularity- you argued that he’s not popular enough to win remember. And now that he’s won the election, you moved the goalposts by claiming that him winning the election doesn’t make him popular. It’s another thing you’ll often see in politics in the West because we find it hard to accept that certain politicians have as much popularity as they do, so finding new criteria to prove they’re incompetent is satisfying- but logically fallacious. So a more logical way to go about this to prevent committing this fallacy would be to ensure that whatever criteria you set from the outset to prove your argument is selected carefully and stuck to.

Accent Fallacy

19.  The Accent Fallacy falls into the 19th spot on this episode and is an interesting one as it’s about changing the meaning of something through emphasis or stress on a particular word or group of words. The example I’m about to give you is a strong example of how the same sentence can mean several different things. Listen to how the meaning changes depending on where I put the stress in this sentence. ‘I didn’t say she stole the money.” I didn’t say she stole the money.” I didn’t say she stole the money.” I didn’t say she stole the money.” I didn’t say she stole the money.” I didn’t say she stole the money.” I didn’t say she stole the money.” Changing where you put the stress in a sentence qualifies for this logical fallacy when it’s purposefully or recklessly done to make an argument. Probably a difficult one to call someone out for but if you know it’s done intentionally, you can weaponise this logical fallacy to protect your argument.

Sunk Cost Fallacy

20.  At number 20 is the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Another logical fallacy that humans are prone to commit due to how we’re wired but it’s a fallacy that promotes efficiency. Have you ever decided to watch the rest of a bad movie just because you’ve already committed to watching an hour of it? I actually saved two hours of my time last night thanks to this logical fallacy and ended up watching a movie I enjoyed even though every bone in my body was telling me to finish watching the movie I had started. The Sunk Cost Fallacy refers to continuing a bad endeavour because of previously invested resources. It’s probably a good way to think when it comes to long term investing but if you’ve invested in something that obviously isn’t working out, it’s logically sound to pull the plug. It’s the reason why people insist going into a bunch of debt to get university degrees is worth it because our brains are wired to justify bad investments of time and resources. So the next time you find yourself asking whether you should commit to an investment that isn’t working out, it would be logically sensible to pull out.

Nirvana fallacy

21.  At number 21, the Nirvana fallacy deals with the adage ‘it’s not black or white’. It’s when you reject a solution because it’s not 100% perfect. Let’s imagine that 80% of migrants coming from Nigeria were perpetuating crimes in the UK. Arguing that just because 20% of the migrants aren’t committing the crimes, that we should continue allowing migration from Nigeria would be logically unsound. Rejecting the solution that migration from Nigeria should be halted notwithstanding that 80% of the migrants are committing crimes would qualify for the Nirvana fallacy- particularly if a more effective solution isn’t proposed.

So those are 21 of some of the most commonly committed logical fallacies.

If you’re interested in logical fallacies, what I’ll do is leave a link to a master list of logical fallacies in the episode description you can peruse in your own time.

I hope this episode makes you a better critical thinker and I hope it makes you think twice before criticising someone’s argument- as there are rules to be followed when it comes to sound logical reasoning.

Thanks for listening.

Peace out.