There are a ton of places on the internet that list fallacies (though I'm not sure how many of them actually claim to be comprehensive), but there are some that I don't think I've ever heard named or talked about. Here are a few relating to citations. (Technically the first one is invalid argumentation rather than a true logical fallacy, but whatever.)

This is even worse when it's taken to an extent I call the Vague Fake Citation Fallacy: doing this with an alleged source so vague that it doesn't even give the opponent a clue where to start even if they wanted to go looking for it. Example: pretty much every sentence starting with "science has proven..." or "it is known..."

The word of someone with greater expertise in the relevant field than either you or your opponent is a great tiebreaker in the absence of compelling evidence either way. But when you take this to the point of using a mere citation to dismiss a totally valid and a priori proof and/or to believe something logically impossible, you get the Authoritarian Fallacy. Even the smartest and best educated humans are not infallible (or unquestionably honest) and should not be followed to obviously absurd or self-contradicting conclusions. Example: the citation to Libet's studies on Wikipedia's article on free will that says it's been proven scientifically that our decisions are made by our brains about ten seconds before we become aware of them. This outright precludes the existence of free will (although Wikipedia claims it doesn't because they have to stick to their token neutrality policy) which is not only directly experienced by all of us but a necessary foundation for all of morality. If you can even take this citation seriously then you're an idiot.



This page was last modified (UTC)