Law of Absolute and Relative Logical Fallacies

The principle that fallacies operate in two modes: absolute fallacies (errors that are fallacious in all logical systems, by any reasonable standard) and relative fallacies (errors that are fallacious in some systems but may be acceptable in others). The law acknowledges that some errors are universally wrong—affirming the consequent is a mistake in any logic that cares about validity. Other errors are system-dependent—what counts as a fallacy in formal logic may be perfectly acceptable in rhetorical argument. The law of absolute and relative fallacies reconciles these by recognizing that fallaciousness has both universal and context-dependent dimensions.

Law of Absolute and Relative Logical Fallacies Example: "He accused her of ad hominem, claiming it was an absolute fallacy. She pointed out that in political debate, attacking character is sometimes relevant and not always fallacious. The law of absolute and relative fallacies said: in formal logic, absolutely fallacious; in political rhetoric, context-dependent. Both were right, which is why fallacies are complicated."

by Abzugal February 16, 2026

Law of Spectral Logical Fallacies

The principle that logical fallacies exist on a spectrum between absolute and relative, with infinite gradations and multiple dimensions. Under this law, a claim isn't simply fallacious or not fallacious—it's fallacious to some degree, in some contexts, under some interpretations, for some purposes. The law of spectral fallacies recognizes that what counts as a fallacy depends on standards of reasoning that themselves vary across domains, cultures, and purposes. An argument that's clearly fallacious in a philosophy seminar might be perfectly acceptable in a political speech; a move that's invalid in formal logic might be persuasive in everyday conversation. The spectral view allows for nuanced evaluation rather than binary dismissal.

Law of Spectral Logical Fallacies Example: "She analyzed his argument using spectral fallacies, mapping it across dimensions: formal logical fallacies (present but weak), rhetorical effectiveness (high), contextual appropriateness (depends on audience), cultural reasoning norms (acceptable in his tradition). The spectral coordinates explained why some listeners were convinced and others were appalled. She stopped calling it simply fallacious and started understanding its complex effects."

by Abzugal February 16, 2026

Flat Earth Analogy Fallacy

The logical fallacy of comparing any position one disagrees with to flat Earth beliefs, implying that because flat Earth is ridiculous, the position in question is equally ridiculous. The fallacy works by guilt by association: if you believe X, you're as crazy as a flat Earther, therefore X is false. It's a rhetorical shortcut that avoids engagement with actual arguments, substituting mockery for reasoning. The flat Earth analogy fallacy is especially common in online debates, where "next you'll tell me the Earth is flat" serves as a conversation-ender, allowing the speaker to dismiss complex positions without addressing them. The fallacy ignores that positions must be evaluated on their merits, not on their resemblance to the most extreme beliefs imaginable.

Flat Earth Analogy Fallacy Example: "She raised concerns about vaccine distribution equity. He responded with the flat Earth analogy fallacy: 'Oh sure, and I suppose the Earth is flat too?' Her concerns about global health inequality had nothing to do with flat Earth beliefs, but the analogy dismissed them without engagement. The conversation ended; the fallacy won."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026

Flat Earth Equivalence Fallacy

The stronger fallacy of claiming that two positions are equivalent because both challenge some form of consensus, ignoring vast differences in evidence, reasoning, and scientific support. The flat Earth equivalence fallacy asserts that believing in climate change is like believing the Earth is flat because both "go against the mainstream," or that questioning vaccine safety is like questioning gravity because both involve skepticism. The fallacy ignores that skepticism is not a binary; it's a matter of evidence. Some consensus views are supported by overwhelming evidence; others are not. Equating them based on the formal similarity of "questioning consensus" is intellectually lazy and rhetorically manipulative. The equivalence fallacy is beloved of false balance journalism and concern trolling.

Flat Earth Equivalence Fallacy Example: "The pundit committed the flat Earth equivalence fallacy, saying that climate scientists were like flat Earthers because both were 'certain' about their views. The equivalence ignored that one certainty was backed by decades of research and global consensus, the other by YouTube videos and wishful thinking. False equivalence had replaced honest comparison."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026

Anti-vaccine Analogy Fallacy

The logical fallacy of comparing any position one disagrees with to anti-vaccine beliefs, implying that because anti-vaccine views are dangerous and baseless, the position in question is similarly dangerous and baseless. The fallacy works by stigma transfer: if you believe X, you're like those terrible anti-vaxxers, therefore X must be rejected. It's a rhetorical weapon that avoids engagement with actual arguments, substituting moral condemnation for reasoning. The anti-vaccine analogy fallacy is especially common in public health debates, where it's used to dismiss legitimate concerns about specific policies by associating them with the most extreme anti-science positions. The fallacy ignores that concerns must be evaluated on their merits, not on their resemblance to the most vilified beliefs.

Anti-vaccine Analogy Fallacy Example: "He questioned the speed of vaccine approval for a new shot. She responded with the anti-vaccine analogy fallacy: 'Oh, so you're anti-vax now?' His question about regulatory process had nothing to do with opposing vaccines generally, but the analogy dismissed it without engagement. Legitimate discussion was replaced by stigma."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026

Anti-vaccine Equivalence Fallacy

The stronger fallacy of claiming that any questioning of vaccine policy is equivalent to being anti-vaccine, or that all vaccine-hesitant positions are equally baseless. The anti-vaccine equivalence fallacy erases important distinctions—between those who reject all vaccines and those with specific concerns, between those who are misinformed and those who are persuadable, between questions asked in good faith and propaganda spread in bad faith. By treating all deviation from consensus as equivalent, the fallacy prevents nuanced discussion, alienates potential allies, and actually strengthens the most extreme positions by lumping them with moderate concerns. The equivalence fallacy is beloved of activists who prefer condemnation to conversation, and of those who find it easier to stigmatize than to persuade.

Anti-vaccine Equivalence Fallacy Example: "The health official committed the anti-vaccine equivalence fallacy, saying that anyone with questions about the new vaccine was 'just like the anti-vaxxers.' Parents with genuine concerns felt dismissed and became harder to reach. The fallacy had created the very resistance it claimed to fight. Nuance was the casualty."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026