Skip to main content
Conspirafy

Logical Fallacies

These are the most common fallacies found in conspiracy theory arguments. Learning to recognize them is the first step toward evaluating claims critically — whether they come from conspiracy theorists or from mainstream institutions.

Ad Hominem

Rhetorical

Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. In conspiracy contexts, dismissing debunkers as "shills" or "paid agents."

Example: Dismissing a climate scientist's findings because they received government funding.

Anecdotal Fallacy

Statistical

Using personal stories or isolated examples instead of statistical or scientific evidence. One person's experience does not establish a pattern.

Example: "My neighbor got sick after the 5G tower went up, so 5G must cause illness."

Appeal to Authority

Logical

Citing an authority figure outside their area of expertise, or citing a single dissenting expert against scientific consensus.

Example: A mechanical engineer claiming vaccines cause autism, presented as an "expert" opinion.

Appeal to Ignorance

Logical

Claiming something is true because it hasn't been proven false, or false because it hasn't been proven true. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence — but it's also not evidence of presence.

Example: "You can't prove aliens AREN'T visiting Earth, so they must be."

Argument from Incredulity

Logical

Concluding something must be false (or conspiratorial) because it seems personally unbelievable. "I can't understand how X could happen, therefore it didn't."

Example: "I don't see how 19 hijackers could defeat the world's most powerful military, therefore it must have been an inside job."

Cherry-Picking

Logical

Selecting only evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion while ignoring contradictory data. Also known as the fallacy of incomplete evidence.

Example: Citing one cold winter as proof against climate change while ignoring the global temperature trend.

False Dichotomy

Logical

Presenting only two options when more exist. "Either you believe the official story, or you're a free thinker." Ignores the many positions between complete acceptance and total rejection.

Example: "You're either with us or against us" — framing the debate as only two possible positions.

Genetic Fallacy

Logical

Judging something as good or bad based on where it comes from, rather than its actual merits. Dismissing evidence because of its source without evaluating its content.

Example: "That study was funded by Big Pharma, so its conclusions must be wrong" — without examining the methodology.

Gish Gallop

Rhetorical

Overwhelming an opponent with a rapid succession of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations. Named after creationist Duane Gish.

Example: Listing 50 "anomalies" about the Moon landing in rapid succession, each requiring lengthy refutation.

Moving the Goalposts

Logical

Changing the criteria for proof or acceptance after the original criteria have been met. When evidence meets one demand, a new demand is introduced.

Example: Asking for evidence of the Moon landing, then dismissing photos as fabricated, then dismissing rock samples as terrestrial.

Nirvana Fallacy

Logical

Comparing a real-world situation to an unrealistic ideal, then concluding the real thing must be flawed or fake. Also called the perfect solution fallacy.

Example: Arguing that because some vaccine batches had quality issues, the entire vaccination program must be a scam.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Logical

Assuming that because event B followed event A, A must have caused B. Correlation is mistaken for causation.

Example: "My child was vaccinated, then developed symptoms of autism — therefore the vaccine caused it."

Slippery Slope

Logical

Arguing that one event will inevitably lead to a chain of negative consequences without evidence for the causal links.

Example: "If they mandate one vaccine, next they'll implant microchips, then it's full government control."

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

Statistical

Finding a pattern in random data by focusing on similarities and ignoring differences. Named after a joke about a shooter who fires at a barn, then paints a target around the bullet holes.

Example: Noticing that several world events occurred on dates with the number 11 and concluding it's a pattern rather than coincidence.

Tu Quoque

Rhetorical

"You too" — deflecting criticism by pointing out that the critic is guilty of something similar. Does not address the original argument.

Example: Responding to evidence of a conspiracy theory's flaws by saying "Well, the government lies too."