Thirteen Aristotelian Fallacies: the First Systematic Catalog of Fallacies

A fallacy is deceptive not because it has a Latin name, but because a bad transition looks like a good one at a glance.

Scene: answer to the wrong thesis

— I suggest lowering the music volume after ten in the evening. — So you want to ban people from having fun.

The first thesis concerns time and volume. The response turns it into a complete ban on fun. The objection sounds energetic but does not refute the original position.

Aristotle was the first to systematically walk through such fallacious refutations. His main question is more practical than a catalog:

Did we obtain a contradiction to the original thesis — in the same sense, time, relation, and under the same conditions?

Two Fallacy Families

Language creates a dual reading

A word or phrase allows multiple meanings:

• homonymy: one word denotes different things;
• ambiguity: the whole construction is ambiguous;
• junction and separation: the meaning changes depending on the grouping of words;
• emphasis: the quote changes due to the highlighted part;
• expression form: grammar forces one property to be mistaken for another.

Scene: an ad stating “discount on teachers’ books.” Is this a discount on books written by teachers, or a discount for teachers on books?

Repair: list the admissible readings and rewrite the phrase so that only one remains.

The content of the conversation creates a false bridge

Aristotle also describes fallacies, where the words are clear, but the reasoning substitutes the task:

• A property of a part is transferred to the whole or vice versa;
• The random is considered necessary;
• The relative is presented as unconditional;
• An effect is taken as a cause;
• The question already contains an unproven assumption;
• The proof goes in circles;
• Instead of the thesis, something nearby is refuted.

Second example: complex question

When did you stop hiding the expenses?

Any direct answer assumes that expenses were hidden. This is a complex question: a controversial premise is embedded in it.

Repair: split:

1. Were the expenses hidden?
2. What data does this show?
3. If yes, when did the practice end?

How to use the catalog

1. Repeat the original thesis in your own words and get confirmation.
2. Show which phrase or connection the response changed.
3. Explain why this change is important.
4. Return the conversation to the original question.

For the music stage:

I did not suggest banning fun. My thesis is to limit loudness after ten. Let’s discuss the acceptable level, timing, and consequences of this measure.

Short practice

— Return policies need to be clear. — It is impossible to describe rules for every life situation.

What has been substituted? What thesis would be a true contradiction to the original? How to restore the conversation?

Possible fix: “There won’t be a complete instruction for every case, but typical cases, timelines, and exception escalation procedures can be described.”

Chapter Rule: a refutation must address the same thesis, in the same sense and under the same conditions. An impressive reply hitting a nearby target is not a refutation.