Talk:List of fallacies

Circular reasoning exemple is not accurate

Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion is assumed in the premises. It proves nothing because it relies on itself.

Better example of circular reasoning:

God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God.

Here, the conclusion (God exists) is already embedded in the premises.

The given example:

“All bachelors are unmarried males” is not an example of circular reasoning, but an analytic definition :

• The word bachelor means “unmarried male” (traditionally in English and formal logic),
• It’s not a reasoning process, but a linguistic identity: nothing is being inferred or proven,
• There is no argument or justification taking place,
• It seems sometimes to be labeled “circular” due to pedagogical confusion: some textbooks or lectures use this as an example of a statement that provides no new information, similar to what happens in circular reasoning,
• It could be called tautological or redundant, but that does not make it circular in the strict logical sense,
• True circular reasoning involves an inference in which the conclusion is presupposed.

See for reference :

• The article about Circular reasoning,
• Copi & Cohen, Introduction to Logic,
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Analytic/Synthetic Distinction.

I propose to update the example given in this list. Oversleep9 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that that is a bad example. The example is a truism since it relies on appealing to its own definition. Truisms are a form of circular reasoning, but don't really highlight the point being made here.

I found this example here (paraphrased) : "The defendant is guilty because they failed a lie detector test. How do you know the test is accurate? Because convicts fail it."

Here the example is makes a clear circular reference, "guilty because of test accuracy, test accuracy because it makes people guilty."

I'll make the update shortly. Squatch347 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Ambiguity re. heading for 'Statistical fallacies'

If 'Statistical fallacies' is indeed intended to show as sub-type of 'Questionable cause' then this should be made clear (like it is for 'Red herring fallacies' under 'Relevance fallacies'). There is nothing in this section or in its linked pages saying these are types of 'Questionable cause' fallacies. If OTOH the 'Statistical fallacies' header styling was made in error, it needs to be revised up one level. Geiger7 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think keeping them as a sub-section of questionable cause makes sense given that they are specific statistical misunderstandings of variable relationships. Are you looking for something like a lead in text to that sub-section? Squatch347 (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

ONUS/BURDEN

Given our policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Paradoctor I'm fairly sure it's up to the people seeking to include something to prove that a source exists for something, and not the other way around. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a list, and list entry content is derived from the listed articles. Entries here only need to correctly summarize their article. If that article contains unsupported claims, edit the article, and the entry will follow suit. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Again Paradoctor, I'm fairly sure being a list does not exempt an article from WP:MINREF. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

In a few days, this matter will be settled. Brewing tea for now. Paradoctor (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Goomba Fallacy

The goomba fallacy is fairly well-known and applicable on the modern Internet. Surely it ought to be included here? MatildaLyonne (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

We do have goomba fallacy.

For a list entry, we need a couple of WP:reliable sources defining and discussing the term, at a minimum. Paradoctor (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than some English teacher's blog. I'm content with tagging for now, but we need more than that. Paradoctor (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't seem to find anything that doesn't call back to Know Your Meme.

I think this is a just a memefication of a fallacy of division or hasty generalization.

Squatch347 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:URBANDICTIONARY, WP:KNOWYOURMEME

We need sources reliable for fallacies, not unreliable sources for memes.

well-known: You might want to read WP:BFDI. Paradoctor (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)