Disinformation and Propaganda Glossary

A false dilemma, also known as a false dichotomy or the fallacy of bifurcation, is a logical fallacy that presents a situation as having only two exclusive options, when in fact there are additional viable alternatives. The error lies not in the logical form of the argument, but in the false premise that limits the available choices.

In its simplest form, a false dilemma reduces the situation to two opposing choices: either A or B is true. If A is true, B must be false, and vice versa. This oversimplification excludes other possible options (e.g., C), misleading the audience into thinking that they must choose between the limited options presented.

Is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

Examples:

1. "The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no more harmful than when your neighbor drips some oil on the ground when changing his car's oil."
   The "false equivalence" is the comparison between things differing by many orders of magnitude: Deepwater Horizon spilled 210 million US gal (790 million L) of oil; one's neighbor might spill perhaps 1 US pt (0.47 L).
2. "They are both Felidae, mammals in the order Carnivora, therefore there's little difference between having a pet cat and a pet jaguar."
   The "false equivalence" is in an oversimplification of the factors that make an animal a suitable pet.
3. "Consuming marijuana can lead to consuming and acquiring a psychological dependence on heroin later in life by acting as a gateway drug, so taking marijuana is like taking heroin."
   The "false equivalence" is not considering the difference in likelihood. Consuming heroin is more likely to lead to future heroin dependence than taking marijuana, even given the assumption that one who begins using marijuana is more likely at some later time to try heroin, than someone who has never used marijuana.

A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics. It is an example of jumping to conclusions.

Example: Notice that the number 1 is a square number; 3 is a prime number, 5 is a prime number, 7 is a prime number; 9 is a square number; 11 is a prime number, and 13 is a prime number.
From these observations, you may claim that all odd numbers are either prime or square, while in reality, 15 is an example that disproves the claim.

When a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon.

For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group from what one knows about just one or a few people:

1. If one meets a rude person from a given country X, one may suspect that most people in country X are rude.
2. If one sees only white swans, one may suspect that all swans are white.
3. These two tools are blunt. The whole box of tools must be blunt.
4. Oxygen and hydrogen are gases at room temperature. Therefore water (H20) is a gas at room temperature.

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.

Is an informal fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Fallacy of the single cause can be logically reduced to: "X caused Y; therefore, X was the only cause of Y" (although A,B,C...etc. also contributed to Y.) Causal oversimplification is a specific kind of false dilemma where conjoint possibilities are ignored.

In other words, the possible causes are assumed to be "A xor B xor C" when "A and B and C" or "A and B and not C" (etc.) are not taken into consideration; i.e. the "or" is not exclusive.

Petition principii, or begging the question, is a logical fallacy where a claim is supported by a premise that either restates the claim or assumes it to be true. Essentially, it tries to prove a proposition by taking the proposition for granted.

When this fallacy involves only one variable, it is sometimes called hysteron proteron (Greek for 'later earlier'), a rhetorical device. An example is the statement:

'Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality.'

The word 'soporific' means 'causing sleep,' so the phrase doesn't actually explain why opium causes sleep. A sentence that properly explains why opium induces sleep might be:

'Opium induces sleep because it contains Morphine-6-glucuronide, which inhibits the brain's pain receptors, causing a pleasurable sensation that eventually leads to sleep.'

This fallacy can occur in a simple statement or through a more complex series of statements that circle back to the original claim, thus 'proving' it without providing any actual evidence.

Question that has a complex presupposition. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when they give any direct answer. When a presupposition includes an admission of wrongdoing, it is called a "loaded question" and is a form of entrapment in legal trials or debates.

The presupposition is called "complex" if it is a conjunctive proposition, a disjunctive proposition, or a conditional proposition. It could also be another type of proposition that contains some logical connective in a way that makes it have several parts that are component propositions.

X and Y are unrelated questions. When are combined into question Z, will requires a single answer. The Complex Question often is arranged such that whichever way you answer the question, the questioner gains the advantage (i.e. a double bind).

Examples:

1. Have you stopped smoking? ['yes' or 'no' both admits being a smoker]
2. Will you help me and carry this?

Discredit the other person before they speak. Or discredit the topic or argument that they may support.

There are many ways of discrediting the person. Call them names. Talk about their lies. Show them to be unworthy. Tell how they are unintelligent, crazy or otherwise undesirable, inferior and not worth listening to, let alone believing.

To discredit the topic or argument, indicate how it is patently absurd, proven to be false or that only fools would support it.

Examples:

1. Well, Jane will tell you something else, but then she always lived on the other side of the tracks.
2. Mike doesn't have a degree, but he does speak nicely, doesn't he.
3. Only an idiot would consider Didactus to have any useful opinion.
4. Everybody knows that cold fusion is a proven impossibility. Jack: did you have something to say on this.

By discrediting the other person, you are also effectively discrediting anything they say by reducing their authority. If the other person is there, a public attack forces them onto the defensive, socially obliging them to respond first to the attack and hence distracting them from their main argument. If the other person is not there, then they cannot defend themselves.

Personal attack always has its hazards, and other people, especially rescuers, may well leap to their defense.

is an informal fallacy which one commits when one reasons, "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is a fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been caused by a closely preceding event merely on the grounds of temporal succession. This type of reasoning is fallacious because mere temporal succession does not establish a causal connection.

Examples:

• The man pulled out a gun. A shot was fired. Therefore the man fired the shot.
• You used the telephone and then it stopped working. You broke the phone.

Just because something follows something else, this is not sufficient evidence to prove true cause and effect. This temporal relationship may simply be coincidence.

Something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion.

The term was popularized in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, who told a story of having used a strong-smelling smoked fish to divert and distract hounds from chasing a rabbit.

If you want to avoid talking about something, change the subject. Pick something that will engage the other people. It can be completely off the current track or something related, but not really relevant. Something controversial or anything that arouses their emotions is often a good idea.

Examples:

1. What about Christmas? Well, my aunt is coming next week.
2. This is expensive. Mind you, I heard that we might get a raise soon.

Is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.

If X is false, then the situation would be absurd. So X is true.

When you want to prove something is true, indicate that if it were false, then the situation would be plainly ridiculous and things might happen that are obviously nonsensical. Make it seem that anyone who believes that the item is false would also be ridiculous and unworthy.

A variant on this is to start by assuming several things might be true, then show that if the (desired) item is true then other items must be false.

Examples:

• If you can't float on water then you would sink like a stone and walk on the bottom of the ocean.
• If people didn't talk to one another, then there would be no society.
• If you were the unhappiest person in the world then you would probably die from sadness. You are still here so you cannot be that unhappy.