Fallacies contribute to conspiratorial thinking
Conspiracy theories are often treated as problems of misinformation or false beliefs. Yet, at their core, they are sustained by systematic errors in reasoning. Logical fallacies provide the cognitive shortcuts that allow complex, uncertain, or emotionally charged events to be interpreted as intentional, hidden, and coordinated plots. Rather than being accidental mistakes, these fallacies function as structural supports for conspiratorial thought—making such narratives feel plausible, emotionally compelling, and resistant to correction.
Understanding how fallacies operate is therefore essential for explaining why conspiracy beliefs emerge, persist, and spread, even in the face of strong counter-evidence.
1. Fallacies of Relevance
The premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion; persuasion replaces proper support.
1.1 Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)
Definition: The argument relies on emotions or popular sentiment rather than evidence.
Example:
“Everyone feels angry about government corruption, so this new policy must be wrong.”
1.2 Red Herring
Definition: The argument distracts from the real issue by introducing something irrelevant.
Example:
“Why worry about climate change when there are people who don’t even have jobs?”
1.3 Straw Man (hombre de paja)
Definition: An opponent’s argument is misrepresented to make it easier to attack.
Example:
“She wants stricter gun laws, so she clearly wants to take away all personal freedoms.”
1.4 Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)
Definition: Threats or coercion are used instead of reasons.
Example:
“If you don’t agree with this proposal, you may lose your position.”
1.5 Argument Against the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
a) Abusive ad hominem
Definition: Attacking the character or intelligence of the person.
Example:
“You can’t trust his economic argument—he’s ignorant.”
b) Circumstantial ad hominem
Definition: Dismissing an argument because of the speaker’s circumstances.
Example:
“Of course she supports public healthcare—she works in a hospital.”
c) Guilt by Association
Definition: Discrediting an argument by associating the speaker with an unpopular group.
Example:
“That idea is supported by extremists, so it must be false.”
1.6 Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)
Definition: The premises support a different conclusion than the one drawn.
Example:
“This policy is expensive; therefore, it is unjust.”
2. Fallacies of Deficient Induction
The premises are relevant but provide insufficient support for the conclusion.
2.1 Hasty Generalization
Definition: A general conclusion is drawn from too few cases.
Example:
“I met two dishonest politicians, so all politicians are corrupt.”
2.2 False Cause
Definition: A causal relationship is assumed without adequate evidence.
Example:
“After the new mayor was elected, crime increased—so the mayor caused the crime.”
2.3 Weak Analogy
Definition: The analogy used lacks relevant similarities.
Example:
“Employees are like nails—you have to hit them to make them work.”
2.4 Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Definition: Claiming something is true because it hasn’t been proven false (or vice versa).
Example:
“No one has proven that aliens don’t control governments, so they probably do.”
2.5 Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
Definition: An authority without relevant expertise is used as evidence.
Example:
“A famous actor says this medicine works, so it must be effective.”
3. Fallacies of Presupposition
The error lies in what the argument assumes rather than proves.
3.1 Accident
Definition: A general rule is wrongly applied to an exceptional case.
Example:
“Free speech is always allowed, so shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is acceptable.”
3.2 Complex Question
Definition: A question that assumes something unproven.
Example:
“Have you stopped lying to your colleagues?”
3.3 Begging the Question (petitio principii)
Definition: The conclusion is already assumed in the premises.
Example:
“This law is just because it is the right law.”
4. Fallacies of Ambiguity
The argument depends on unclear or shifting meanings.
4.1 Equivocation
Definition: A key term is used in different senses.
Example:
“A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.”
4.2 Amphiboly
Definition: Ambiguity arises from grammatical structure.
Example:
“The police arrested the protester with a stick.”
4.3 Accent
Definition: Meaning changes because of emphasis or context.
Example:
“The label says this product is natural,” (ignoring the fine print).
4.4 Composition
Definition: What is true of the parts is assumed to be true of the whole.
Example:
“Each player is a star, so the team must be unbeatable.”
4.5 Division
Definition: What is true of the whole is assumed to be true of the parts.
Example:
“The university is wealthy, so every professor must be well paid.”
Final Note
-
One argument may contain several fallacies
-
Classification depends on context and interpretation
-
Fallacies are especially powerful in political rhetoric, advertising, and conspiracy narratives
Source:
Pereda, C. (n.d.). ¿Qué es una falacia? Retrieved from https://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/~cruzparc/copicap4.pdf