Catalog of 60 Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Complete reference guide to 60 logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and manipulative rhetoric tactics to master critical thinking and debate skills.

Manipulace (9)

Straw Man (Fallacia straw man)
You misrepresent or exaggerate your opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, knock down, and defeat....
Red Herring (Ignoratio elenchi)
You divert attention from the original topic of discussion to a completely different, seemingly related one to avoid a tough question....
No True Scotsman (No true Scotsman)
When a universal claim is disproven by a counterexample, you change the definition of the group to exclude the counterexample....
Loaded Question (Plurium interrogationum)
You ask a question that has a presumption built into it, so that any direct answer (yes/no) makes the respondent look guilty....
Gish Gallop (Gish gallop)
You overwhelm your opponent with a rapid series of weak, half-true, or false arguments, making it impossible to refute them all....
Anonymous Authority Appeal (Appeal to anonymous authority)
You refer to the opinion of unspecified 'experts', 'scientists', or 'many people' without providing names or source studies....
Misleading Vividness (Misleading vividness)
You describe an isolated, dramatic event in vivid detail to make people feel that it is a common and dangerous phenomenon....
Unfalsifiability (Unfalsifiability)
You present an argument formulated in a way that cannot be disproven by any test, placing it outside of rational debate....
False Referee (Appeal to bias / False referee)
You propose resolving a dispute using an independent arbitrator who is actually secretly biased towards your side....

Útoky (8)

Ad Hominem (Argumentum ad hominem)
You attack your opponent's character, personal traits, or past instead of engaging with their actual argument....
Tu Quoque (Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque)
You avoid engaging with criticism by turning it back on the accuser, claiming they do or did the same thing....
Appeal to Motive (Argumentum ad hominem circumstantial)
You challenge your opponent's argument by pointing out their personal circumstances or motives that might bias their view....
Guilt by Association (Association fallacy)
You discredit an opponent's argument by linking it to an unpopular person or group who shares a similar isolated opinion....
Ad Hominem to Age (Argumentum ad annos)
You dismiss your opponent's argument solely based on their young or old age....
Poisoning the Well (Poisoning the well)
You present negative information about an opponent beforehand to discredit anything they say afterwards....
Two Wrongs Make a Right (Two wrongs make a right)
You excuse your own incorrect behavior by pointing out that someone else did something similar or even worse....
Appeal to Freedom (Argumentum ad liberum)
You reject criticism of your opinion by claiming your constitutional right to express your views freely....

Rozum (23)

False Dilemma (Falsum dilemma)
You present two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist....
Slippery Slope (Slippery slope)
You claim that if we allow A to happen, it will set off a chain reaction leading to a major catastrophe, without providing proof....
Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad verecundiam)
You claim that something is true because an authority figure said so, but the authority is not an expert in the relevant field....
Middle Ground (Argumentum ad temperantiam)
You claim that a compromise between two extreme positions must be the truth, simply because it is in the middle....
Circular Reasoning (Petitio principii)
You prove your conclusion by using a premise that already assumes the conclusion is true. The argument is circular....
Genetic Fallacy (Genetica fallacia)
You judge the truth or quality of an argument solely based on its origin, history, or source, rather than its current merits....
Appeal to Nature (Argumentum ad naturam)
You argue that because something is natural it must be good, healthy, and correct, while anything artificial is harmful....
Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad ignorantiam)
You argue that a claim is true simply because it hasn't been proven false (or vice versa)....
Fallacy of Composition (Fallacia compositionis)
You assume that because each individual part of a whole has a certain property, the whole must also have that property....
Fallacy of Division (Fallacia divisionis)
You assume that because a whole has a certain property, each of its individual parts must also have that property....
Non Sequitur (Non sequitur)
Your conclusion does not follow from the premises, though it is presented as if it is a direct consequence....
Double Standard (Double standard)
You apply different rules or criteria for the same situation depending on who is involved (e.g. yourself vs. others)....
Sunk Cost Fallacy (Sunk cost fallacy)
You continue with a failing project simply because you have already invested a lot of time, effort, or money into it....
Argument from Silence (Argumentum ex silentio)
You draw a conclusion from the fact that an opponent is silent, or that there is no written record of an event....
Appeal to Consequences (Argumentum ad consequentiam)
You argue that a claim is false because accepting it would lead to unpleasant or undesirable consequences....
Subjective Relativism (Subjective relativism)
You claim that truth is purely subjective and that your opinion is right for you, even if it contradicts objective facts....
Appeal to Incredulity (Argumentum ad incredulitatem)
You declare a claim false simply because it is hard for you to understand, or you cannot imagine how it could be true....
Appeal to Common Practice (Argumentum ad antiquitatem)
You claim that a behavior or procedure is correct simply because it is a common practice and everyone does it....
Appeal to Probability (Appeal to probability)
You claim that because something is possible or likely to happen, it is certain to happen and we must act accordingly....
Inconsistency (Inconsistency)
Your argument contains two claims that directly contradict each other, meaning they cannot both be true at the same time....
Wishful Thinking (Wishful thinking)
You claim that a statement is true simply because you strongly wish it were true, despite a complete lack of evidence....
Ad Hoc Rescue (Ad hoc rescue)
When your argument is disproven, you quickly invent a new auxiliary explanation to save your claim from failure....
Witch Hunt (Witch-hunt)
You reject your opponent's view by labeling it as dangerous heresy, enemy propaganda, or a conspiracy without any proof....

Emoce (11)

Appeal to Popularity (Argumentum ad populum)
You argue that an idea or behavior must be correct or true simply because a large number of people agree with it or do it....
Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad misericordiam)
You try to win support for an argument by exploiting your opponent's feelings of pity or guilt instead of presenting evidence....
Appeal to Fear (Argumentum ad baculum)
You support your argument by raising fear, threats, or alarm about negative consequences instead of showing logical proof....
Appeal to Tradition (Argumentum ad antiquitatem)
You argue that an idea or practice is correct simply because it has always been done that way and has a long history....
Appeal to Novelty (Argumentum ad novitatem)
You claim that an idea, method, or product is better or more correct simply because it is new and modern....
Appeal to Wealth (Argumentum ad crumenam)
You claim that someone's opinion or advice is true and correct simply because they are rich and successful....
Appeal to Poverty (Argumentum ad lazarum)
You claim that someone's opinion or argument is true and morally pure simply because they are poor and live a simple life....
Appeal to Ridicule (Argumentum ad absurdum)
Instead of disproving your opponent's argument, you parody or mock it to make it look foolish and absurd to others....
Appeal to Anger (Argumentum ad odium)
You try to arouse anger, resentment, or hatred in the audience to get them to accept your claim without factual proof....
Appeal to Flattery (Argumentum ad captandum)
You present an argument accompanied by flattery to win sympathy and get the opponent to agree without critical thinking....
Appeal to Normality (Appeal to normality)
You claim that a behavior or attitude is correct and desirable solely because it matches what is considered normal in your group....

Data/Logika (9)

Hasty Generalization (Secundum quid)
You draw a broad conclusion based on a small or non-representative sample of data....
False Cause (Post hoc ergo propter hoc)
You assume that because one event followed another, the first event must be the cause of the second....
Burden of Proof (Onus probandi)
You claim your point is correct because no one has proven it wrong, shifting the duty of proof to the other side....
Texas Sharpshooter (Texas sharpshooter)
You cherry-pick a cluster of data that supports your theory while ignoring the larger body of data that contradicts it....
Anecdotal Evidence (Anecdotal evidence)
You use a single personal experience or isolated story instead of sound statistics or scientific studies....
Gambler's Fallacy (Gambler's fallacy)
You believe that if a random event occurred less frequently than expected in the past, it is more likely to occur in the future....
False Equivalence (False equivalence)
You compare two completely different situations or acts and claim they are equally severe or equivalent....
Correlation Proves Causation (Cum hoc ergo propter hoc)
You claim that two events occurring together must have a cause-and-effect relationship, even if it is just a coincidence....
Ignoring a Common Cause (Ignoring a common cause)
You assume a causal connection between two events when both are actually effects of a single underlying cause....

Faulr – Interaktivní přehled 60 argumentačních faulů a klamů

Vzdělávací aplikace pro trénink kritického myšlení a rozpoznávání manipulativních technik v diskuzích.