Arguing that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false, or that a proposition is false because it has not been proven true. Absence of evidence is treated as evidence of absence (or vice versa).

Placing the obligation to disprove a claim on the skeptic rather than placing the obligation to prove the claim on the person making it. The fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim and then demands others prove it false.

Attempting to transfer the responsibility of providing evidence from the claimant to the skeptic during an ongoing argument, often after failing to provide adequate evidence for the original claim. This is a tactical move to avoid having to support one's position.

Rejecting a claim because one personally finds it difficult to believe, hard to imagine, or counterintuitive, rather than providing evidence against it. The argument takes the form 'I can't understand how X could be true, therefore X is false.'

Concluding that something did not happen, does not exist, or is not true because it is not mentioned in historical records, texts, or other sources. The silence or absence of mention is treated as positive evidence of absence.

Asserting a claim repeatedly or with confidence as if it were proven, without providing evidence or logical argument to support it. The assertion itself is treated as proof, often using repetition or emphatic restatement.

A categorical syllogism with two negative premises. A valid categorical syllogism requires at least one affirmative premise to establish a positive connection between terms. When both premises are negative, they only specify what categories do not overlap, providing no basis for any definite conclusion about what relationships do exist.

Treating two or more things as equivalent or comparable when they differ in relevant, significant ways that undermine the comparison. The fallacy occurs when surface similarities or shared characteristics are emphasized while critical differences are ignored, leading to inappropriate conclusions about equivalence, equal treatment, or equal concern.

Presenting numerical data with a level of precision that is unjustified by the underlying measurement, estimation method, or actual knowledge. This includes reporting more decimal places than the measurement accuracy supports, or using exact figures when only rough estimates are possible, creating a misleading impression of accuracy and certainty.

Drawing conclusions from published research without accounting for the systematic bias created when studies with negative or null results remain unpublished (left in the 'file drawer'). Since studies finding positive or surprising results are much more likely to be published than those finding no effect, the published literature gives a distorted view of reality, making effects appear stronger or more consistent than they actually are.

Assuming that a particular resource, benefit, or outcome is fixed in total amount, such that one party's gain necessarily equals another's loss. This fallacy treats variable-sum situations as if they were zero-sum, ignoring possibilities for mutual gain, value creation, growth, or situations where everyone can benefit simultaneously.

Explaining natural phenomena, processes, or behaviors by attributing purpose, goals, or intended outcomes to things that do not have intentions or purposes. This involves treating efficient causes (mechanistic processes) as if they were final causes (purposes or goals), or assuming that because something has a beneficial outcome, the outcome was the reason the process exists.

Using an objection or counterargument that, if accepted as valid, would apply equally well to virtually any claim or position, including ones the arguer accepts or obviously true statements. The counterargument is so general that it proves too much - if it worked against the target claim, it would also work against claims we know are true or against the arguer's own position, revealing it as an illegitimate form of reasoning.

Using causal language or providing what appears to be a causal explanation while not actually identifying any causal mechanism or adding explanatory content. The explanation merely relabels the phenomenon with causal-sounding terminology without reducing mystery or improving understanding. It gives the appearance of explanation while doing no actual explanatory work.

Incorrectly accusing an argument of committing a logical fallacy, either by misidentifying which fallacy applies, claiming a fallacy exists where the reasoning is actually sound, or using fallacy accusations as a rhetorical weapon without engaging with the substance of the argument. This includes treating all instances of argument forms (like appeals to authority or emotion) as automatically fallacious regardless of context.

Correctly recognizing that an argument contains a reasoning error but incorrectly identifying which specific fallacy it commits. While the underlying intuition that something is wrong with the reasoning may be correct, applying the wrong fallacy label can misdiagnose the problem, lead to incorrect remedies, and undermine credibility in pointing out the error.

Constructing an argument where any possible response or action by the opponent is characterized as confirming the original claim, creating an unfalsifiable or no-win situation. The argument is structured so that all paths lead to the same conclusion favorable to the arguer, regardless of what the opponent does or says, effectively immunizing the claim from any possible counter-evidence or response.