You have may noticed that the right side of this page contains a number of categories. The list of authors identifies, unsurprisingly, the authors of the pieces under discussion. On rare occasions we use them to point out when an author, and not the author\u2019s work, has been discussed. For the most part, the other categories classify the arguments under discussion by general type of logical fallacy. You may or may not recognize some of these fallacies or as is more likely you may think others belong on the list. We certainly would appreciate hearing from you if you think we should add some. But in any case, the list is not meant to be exhaustive or final. Since we started this page nearly four years ago, we have added a few new categories. In particular, we have expanded the original list of 18 or so fallacies and we have added a few categories that wouldn\u2019t exactly qualify as specific fallacies. We would stress however that in any case the categories are not meant to be taken as absolute judgments. For our judgment on a particular piece you can read the posting\u2013the posting, and not the assignment of the fallacy category, is our judgment. The categories serve as a handy reference guide for those looking for instances of, say, ad hominem arguments. As always, you\u2019re free to comment. We don\u2019t edit or delete critical comments, and, time permitting, we usually respond. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
You have may noticed that the right side of this page contains a number of categories. The list of authors identifies, unsurprisingly, the authors of the pieces under discussion. On rare occasions we use them to point out when an author, and not the author\u2019s work, has been discussed. For the most part, the other … Continue reading The fallacy categories<\/span>