Explore fallacies that argue based on the age, naturalness, or consequences of ideas rather than their merit. These appeals often exploit our psychological biases toward the familiar, the natural, or desired outcomes.
Arguing that something is good, right, or superior simply because it is natural, or that something is bad simply because it is artificial or unnatural.
Arguing that something is correct, superior, or should be maintained simply because it has been done that way for a long time or is traditional.
Arguing that something is better, correct, or superior simply because it is new, modern, or recent, without providing evidence of actual superiority.
Arguing that a belief or claim must be true or false based on whether its consequences are desirable or undesirable, rather than on evidence for the claim itself.
Claiming that a position must be accepted or an action must be taken because it is God's will or has divine approval, without providing independent evidence or reasoning.
Arguing that a claim should be accepted or an inquiry should be ended because people need psychological closure, certainty, or resolution, regardless of whether sufficient evidence exists.
Assuming that merely accumulating a specific amount of practice time (often cited as 10,000 hours) guarantees expertise or mastery, while ignoring the quality of practice, individual differences, domain-specific factors, aptitude, and the necessity of deliberate, focused training with feedback.
Reaching a misleading conclusion by placing emphasis, stress, or typographical highlighting on certain words or parts of a statement in a way that alters its intended meaning, or by removing emphasis that was present in the original context. The fallacy occurs when the change in emphasis changes the meaning in a logically relevant way.
Applying a general rule, principle, or guideline to a specific case where exceptional circumstances make the rule inappropriate or inapplicable. The fallacy occurs when someone insists that a generalization must hold in a particular instance despite relevant differences that make the case exceptional.
Modifying a claim, theory, or hypothesis after it has been challenged or appears to be falsified by adding new assumptions or conditions that were not part of the original claim, where these modifications are introduced solely to save the claim from refutation without independent evidence or justification. The additions make the claim immune to the specific counterevidence without improving its explanatory power.