explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Logical Fallacies Part III

Scott CunninghamJul 18, 2018, 3:31:51 AM

Hey hey! I want to talk to again you about logical fallacies! There are oh so many and I'd like to go over them. We are now on to part three of my series on Minds. In this series, we are only covering the actual fallacies and what they are, not the application of them or anything outside of the basics.

Remember for your argument to be logical, THOU MUST NOT COMMIT LOGICAL FALLACIES! Instead of just pointlessly copying and pasting, I will describe these in my own words for you, if that isn't your thing, check out the bottom for references. Otherwise, kindly read on...



This can also be called assertiveness as it's a dangerous fallacy that insinuates someone who is pushy shouldn't be challenged. You see this commonly now in politics or with social justice warriors being very upset or "the most offended" and winning the argument on the issue because the other party does not want to cause a conflict. Allowing this to go unchecked promotes uncivil behavior and abuse of the provided privileges to those actually struggling.

The Argument From Fallacies

There are several "argument from" fallacies which I'll cover below comprehensively. 

The Argument From Consequence

This is also known as outcome bias. This fallacy is where someone might argue that because the outcome of something is not acceptable, the premise is wrong. For example, someone might say that because fixing poverty requires some level of socialism, we shouldn't fix poverty because socialism is evil.

The Argument From Ignorance

This is the argument that because you cannot prove something or know something it must be true or it must be false. Like common arguments between atheists and theists that God cannot be unproven so it must exist or God cannot be proven so it must not exist.

The Argument From Incredulity

This is one of my favorites and we see this often. This is when someone rejects a claim because they deem it as "crazy" or something similar because it just conflicts with their values, beliefs, or personal experiences. This comes from a point of emotion, not logic. We cannot dismiss a claim without having a credible counter argument. 

The Argument From Inertia

This is the most common fallacy usually applied to a religious prejudice in an argument. It's also known as stay the course. This is where someone will continue with their argument after they have realized they are mistaken, but refuse to believe it out of pride, loyalty, inability to comprehend the sacrifices, etc. This is seen in politics, theology, among many things. 

The Argument From Motives

This is an interesting one to identify. It is almost like ad hominem which is attacking someone's credibility, not their argument. The difference here is that someone will declare an argument invalid or valid purely based on the morality of the person or entity making the claim. Not everyone is always right, not everyone is always wrong, anyone can be right, anyone can be wrong. The point here is that assuming because someone is evil (even though the media paints narratives) and because of that they MUST be lying, that is a fallacy. In the same way, because this person has been perceived as good, they must always tell the truth.

The Argument From Silence

This fallacy we see in law all the time due to the poor relationship between the police and the lower class. This is the fallacy that because the sources are not going to testify and the proof was destroyed that the opposition must be correct due to the other side lacking evidence. While it's true in law, technically this does not prove anything given you can destroy evidence and many people don't "snitch" so it's simple to see how this is common.

The Argument From Strength

We see this all the time. This is the fallacy that if someone wins an argument by force, then they are correct. For example, "No, shut up, if you don't stop talking and give up and say I'm right, I beat you up." That would be a casual example, on a global scale it looks like war. Unfortunately terrorists don't realize from a logical perspective no academic can acknowledge their actions as just because of this. So who are you helping? Makes me think it's not so random.... check out @timcast he has some great coverage of everything going on.

The Argument From  Mystery

This one is pretty confusing but well understood when simply put. So I will say this: this fallacy is where a quasi-hypnotic atmosphere that you see mostly in cults where they appeal ancient origins amongst many other things and people chant and bow and do various rituals. While in religion this is somewhat different, it can be applied in the same way, you cannot prove a point based on something of the mysterious.


Check out these 2 resources I like to use and often refer to:



If you love philosophy as much as I do, feel free to give me a thumbs up and share your thoughts.

If you want to make sure people aren't committing logical fallacies be sure to REMIND them! 

Check out the 2nd blog post in this logical fallacies series!


> Check out my previous article <

🙌 You can also follow me on:

Twitter - https://twitter.com/Scottcbusiness

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/ScottCBusiness

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/scottcbusiness

LinkedIn - https://ca.linkedin.com/in//scottcbusiness

Steemit - https://steemit.com/@scottcbusiness

Minds - https://www.minds.com/scottcbusiness

Discord - ScottCBusiness#5242