Logical Fallacies 2

Here are some more logical fallacies. This is a continuation of the article Logical Fallacies.

Ad Hominem

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another person's claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO's are crazy or stupid.

Ad Ignorantiam

The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will argue: I saw an object in the sky that i could not identify, it must be an alien spacecraft.

Argument from Authority

Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. For example: Einstein's religious beliefs are more valid than anyone else's because he was very intelligent. Einstein was an authority on physics not religion. Another example is: My Priest is evidence that God exists. In addition to being a non-sequitur, this would be an irrelevant appeal to authority because religion is by its very nature a controversial field. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

Argument From Final Consequences

Such arguments (also called teleological) are based on a reversal of cause and effect, because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that is serves. For example: God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.

Argument from Personal Incredulity

I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of making the following argument: I cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, therefore it can't be true. Unfortunately for them, that does not mean that life did not evolve.