Disinformation and Propaganda Glossary

An informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect an a posteriori claim from a falsifying counterexample by covertly modifying the initial claim. Rather than admitting error or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, the claim is modified into an a priori claim in order to definitionally exclude the undesirable counterexample. The modification is signalled by the use of non-substantive rhetoric such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc.

Example:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The cause or causes is/are incorrectly identified. In other words, it is a fallacy of reaching a conclusion that one thing caused another, simply because they are regularly associated.

Questionable cause can be logically reduced to: "A is regularly associated with B; therefore, A causes B."

If you want to prove something wrong, find something that it appears to cause, and then prove that the caused thing is wrong. You can also do the reverse to show something to be right.

Examples:

1. I pulled on the string and the kite fell to ground. Pulling on the string is therefore ineffective.
2. Loud music leads to deafness. Turn that music down!
3. Eating sweets makes you happy. You should eat sweets.

Logical fallacy that occurs in categorical syllogisms when the middle term (the term that appears in both premises) is not distributed, meaning it does not refer to all members of the category it describes. This fallacy leads to incorrect conclusions because the shared term does not adequately link the two premises.

In syllogistic reasoning, a valid argument must distribute the middle term at least once, meaning it must refer to all members of the category it represents in at least one premise. When the middle term is not distributed, it creates a logical gap, leading to a faulty conclusion. The fallacy of the undistributed middle occurs because the premises share a common term, but that term does not establish a proper link between the premises, resulting in an invalid inference.

Recognizing this fallacy is crucial for evaluating the validity of categorical arguments and ensuring that conclusions are logically sound and properly supported by the premises.

A set of statements leads to conclusion X. Yet conclusion Y is drawn.

An argument is given from which a perfectly valid and sound conclusion may be drawn, yet the stated conclusion is something else.

Examples:

1. There has been an increase in burglary in the area. It must be because there are more people moving into the area.
2. The Chief Executive has a Law degree. We'd better make sure we're all above board.
3. You are hot and I am cold. You are wearing a brown coat. So let's go for a drink.

Sometimes this fallacy is used by people who want to prove something but do not know how, so they use any argument and then tack their desired conclusion on to the end. This is something that politicians often do.

This is effective persuasion when the listener does not work through the logic of the argument and is persuaded simply by the fact that some kind of argument is being used (as opposed to the conclusion being given as a simple statement). This can be encouraged by speaking with passion and apparent authority.