[Baroque ideas of yours]

Yes, it’s bias time again. The sixt of the *series* of biases that you, yes you, have. *Even if* you are aware of these, and even if you consciously try to correct for them to be, heh, ‘objective’, as in what e.g. auditors pursue, you will fail.

### Formal fallacies

Formal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious due to an error in their form or technical structure. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

- Appeal to Law: an argument which implies that legislation is a moral imperative.
- Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy’s Law is based.
- Argument from fallacy: assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.
- Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
- Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.
- Conjunction fallacy: assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.

### Correlative based fallacies

- Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none.
- Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
- Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises.
- False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
- If-by-whiskey: An argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
- Ignoratio elenchi: An irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis.
- Is-ought problem: the inappropriate inference that because something is some way or other, so it ought to be that way.
- Homunculus fallacy: where a “middle-man” is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man.
- Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.
- Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
- Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is good or right.
- Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect.
- Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
- Package-deal fallacy: consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.
- Red Herring: also called a “fallacy of relevance.” This occurs when the speaker is trying to distract the audience by arguing some new topic, or just generally going off topic with an argument.

### Propositional fallacies

- Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.
- Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
- Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.

### Quantificational fallacies

- Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion.
- Proof by example: where examples are offered as inductive proof for a universal proposition. (“This apple is red, therefore all apples are red.”)

### Formal syllogistic fallacies

- Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise: when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.
- Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
- Fallacy of four terms: a categorical syllogism has four terms.
- Illicit major: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.
- Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.