The general fallacy of inferring causal relationships from correlational data without adequate controls, mechanism, or consideration of alternative explanations. This encompasses post hoc and cum hoc reasoning but also includes more subtle forms of unjustified causal inference from statistical associations.

Incorrectly inferring the direction of causality in a relationship, concluding that A causes B when actually B causes A, or when causality is bidirectional. This fallacy specifically involves getting the causal arrow pointing the wrong way.

Inferring a direct causal relationship between A and B while failing to recognize that a third variable C causes both A and B, creating a spurious correlation. The observed relationship between A and B is real but not causal; both are effects of the hidden common cause.

Treating a correlation that arose by pure chance or through data mining as if it represents a meaningful relationship. With enough variables and enough data, random chance will produce strong correlations between completely unrelated variables, especially when no theoretical basis for the relationship exists.

Illegitimately changing the order or scope of quantifiers (such as 'all', 'some', 'every', 'there exists') in a logical statement, thereby fundamentally altering the meaning and producing an invalid conclusion. This formal error occurs when switching between universal and existential quantifiers in ways that seem superficially similar but are logically distinct.

Giving disproportionate weight to recent events, experiences, or information when making judgments, evaluating patterns, or forming conclusions, while inadequately considering historical data, long-term trends, or less temporally salient evidence. This leads to distorted assessments that overrepresent current conditions and underrepresent the fuller picture.

Deliberately introducing complexity, confusion, technical jargon, or a mass of loosely relevant information to obscure the central issue, make a weak position seem more defensible, or prevent clear evaluation of an argument. Unlike simple distraction, this tactic specifically creates an environment where the truth becomes difficult to discern through sheer informational opacity.

Creating the appearance of having refuted an argument or position without actually addressing its logical substance. This involves various tactics that seem to demonstrate an argument is false while actually leaving the core claims untouched. The refutation targets a superficial aspect, irrelevant element, or misrepresentation while giving the impression of comprehensive rebuttal.

Using a term, label, or explanation that sounds profound or explanatory but actually provides no additional understanding, predictive power, or reduction of mystery. The word or phrase functions as a stopsign for further inquiry, giving the false impression that something has been explained when curiosity and investigation should continue.

Assuming that expertise in one field automatically confers expertise, authority, or enhanced credibility in a different, unrelated field. This fallacy treats expert status as transferable across domain boundaries without requiring the expert to demonstrate relevant knowledge in the new domain.

Arguing that cognitive abilities, personality traits, or behaviors can be explained by 'right brain' versus 'left brain' dominance, where right brain is associated with creativity and intuition while left brain is associated with logic and analysis. This oversimplification misrepresents neuroscience, creating a false dichotomy between brain hemispheres that actual research doesn't support.

Treating a single study's findings, especially in fields with known replication problems, as establishing reliable truth without consideration of replication status, effect size, methodological quality, publication bias, or the broader evidentiary context. This involves over-trusting preliminary findings and failing to account for the systematic factors that inflate false positive rates in published research.