Discursive Compendium of Fallacies
[DCF] Version 0.0.1 - from 2017-10-21
For the the latest on this document and others in the Rules of Discourse project, check out the project’s homepage: http://virtualstoa.org/rules-of-discourse
2.1.1. Appeal to Cognitive Bias
2.1.3. Argument by Hypnotic Repetition
2.3. Noteworthy Derivative Fallacies
2.3.1. Argument by Exhausting Repetition
2.4.2. Argument from Ignorance
4.1. Logically Fallacious - by Bo Bennett PhD
Rudimentary Fallacies are the most basic fallacies. Fallacies are listed in this category if they are not derivative of any other fallacies in this compendium.
An appeal to cognitive bias is an argument pattern that attempts to persuade by invoking a cognitive bias rather than providing a cogent argument. Such patterns are inherently fallacious.
Subtypes of this fallacy are categorized based on the specific cognitive biases that they appeal to.
Argument by Deterrence is an argument pattern in which one attempts to use some means of deterrence to prevent the other side from rebutting their argument and/or their position.
Subtypes include Appeal to Force, Exhaustion Tactics, and Proof by Gibberish.
Only temporarily classified as a Rudimentary Fallacy for until it’s superset is resolved -- Argument by Hypnotic Repetition is a propaganda technique in which something is repeated often enough to induce people to accept it as truth without adequate examination.
Traditionally, this fallacy and Argument by Exhausting Repetition have been referred to collectively simply as Argument by Repetition - and these two fallacies may at times even be used simultaneously. However, they are in truth two separate fallacies, and therefore deserve two separate names, and as such are given that under the Rules of Discourse.
Circular Reasoning is a fallacious argument-pattern in which an argument uses one or more of its conclusions as one of its premises.
This is when one assumes that a specific position is proven by the mere fact that it’s logical inverse isn’t proven. It is also known as Argument from Ignorance.
The Wild Assertion fallacy is when a statement is made (especially, though not exclusively, as a premise to an argument) without being properly established.
While the Wild Assertion fallacy isn’t a fallacy in most formal sense, the fallacies targeted by the Rules of Discourse are not limited to the formal fallacies. Therefore the Wild Assertion is treated by the Rules of Discourse treats the Wild Assertion as a fallacy.
Of course, the Wild Assertion is not traditionally listed even in compendiums that are inclusive of informal fallacies here. However, since it is a precursor to many of the Informal Fallacies that are indeed traditionally listed, the systematic approach that this compendium strives for requires that the Wild Assertion fallacy be listed as well.
To avoid overuse of this label - it must be stated that this fallacy does not apply to conclusions of an argument, whether they be end conclusions or intermediate conclusions. It applies specifically to either premises of an argument or to standalone statements.
The Wild Assertion fallacy is subdivided into the Sneaky Assertion fallacy (when a wild assertion is clearly used in an argument as a premise despite not being explicitly stated) and the Bold Assertion fallacy (when a wild assertion is explicitly stated, either as a standalone statement or as a premise to an argument).
Intermediate Fallacies are fallacies that are are in-between stages of derivation, between the Rudimentary Fallacies and the Noteworthy Derivative Fallacies.
An Exhaustion Tactic is a subtype of Argument by Deterrence in which one attempts to exhaust one’s opponent to the point of no longer having the energy to provide a rebuttal.
Among the subtypes are Proof by Verbosity and Argument by Exhausting Repetition.
Noteworthy Derivative Fallacies are fallacies that are derived from other fallacies but which need entries of their own to prevent things from getting too confusing.
This is an Exhaustion Tactic in which the opposition is prompted over and over to address the same flawed argument and/or assertion, with possible variations in wording, to the point that the opposition is too exhausted to continue providing rebuttal.
Traditionally, this fallacy and Argument by Hypnotic Repetition have been referred to collectively simply as Argument by Repetition - and these two fallacies may at times even be used simultaneously. However, they are in truth two separate fallacies, and therefore deserve two separate names, and as such are given that under the Rules of Discourse.
A subtype of the Negative Proof fallacy that is invoked after the other side attempts to prove their position through an argument, but has failed to do so because their argument turns out to be fallacious.
This is an Exhaustion Tactic in which one presents an argument that is so big as to be difficult to digest and therefore difficult to provide a rebuttal to. This can be achieved by needlessly long-winded language or by providing a needlessly complex or obtuse argument.
This is the section on Redundant Fallacy Names (including fallacies that are sufficiently indistinct from other fallacies to not warrant their own full-fledged entry). Currently, this section is part of this document - but may be split off into a separate document in future versions.
A name traditionally used for two different fallacies that may be used simultaneously, but are nonetheless separate fallacies deserving two separate names. Therefore, as far as the Rules of Discourse are concerned, they are to be treated as separate fallacies referred to as Argument by Exhausting Repetition and Argument by Hypnotic Repetition.
Another term for the Negative Proof Fallacy.
This document is not yet complete - and even when it is, there is no guarantee that it will contain every fallacy that it needs to contain, nor any guarantee that it will even say everything that needs to say about every fallacy that it does contain.
For this reason, external documents need to be referenced for the purposes of giving mediators, administrators, organizers, and even regular participants, a means to read beyond what is cataloged in this document.
That said - just as something not being included in this compendium doesn’t automatically mean that it isn’t needed in the compendium - if something absent from this compendium appears in one of these external documents, it doesn’t automatically mean that it ought to be in the compendium.
These external references should be read - but their contents not accepted without critical examination.
A lot of his book’s content is available on the book’s web-site: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/
Rational Wiki (https://rationalwiki.org/) catalogues several fallacies as well. A good starting point on where to find them is their article on logical fallacies in general (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy).