Falsche Kausalität (False Cause / Post Hoc)

Relying too heavily on the first piece of information (the anchor).

Perceiving meaningful connections, patterns, or agents in random data.

Attributing natural fluctuation to a specific intervention.

If A occurs, B will occur; A occurs; therefore B.

Anthropomorphisation as a fallacy occurs when human characteristics such as desires, intentions, beliefs, or emotions are attributed to non-human entities — animals, algorithms, corporations, natural phenomena — and these attributed qualities are then used as the basis for reasoning or argumentation. While anthropomorphic language can be a useful heuristic, it becomes fallacious when the projected human qualities are treated as literal truths that drive conclusions.

The pathetic fallacy, a term coined by John Ruskin, occurs when human emotions are projected onto nature, weather, or inanimate objects, and these projections are then used to support conclusions or interpretations. While common and often harmless in literature, it becomes fallacious in argumentation when the emotional state of natural phenomena is treated as evidence for a claim about the world or human affairs.

The ontological fallacy occurs when a model, map, theory, or abstraction is confused with the reality it represents. Conclusions are drawn as if the properties, limitations, and structure of the representation are properties of the thing itself. This is a fundamental category error: the model is an epistemological tool, not an ontological entity, and reasoning that collapses this distinction produces invalid inferences.

The cause-effect swap occurs when the causal direction between two correlated phenomena is reversed. While both events are genuinely related, the arguer misidentifies which is the cause and which is the effect. This is distinct from the general false cause fallacy or post hoc reasoning in that a real causal relationship exists — it is simply inverted. The reversal often serves to support a preferred narrative or intervention.

The teleological fallacy occurs when purpose, design, or intentionality is attributed to a process, system, or entity without evidence that such purpose exists, and this assumed purpose is then used as a basis for reasoning. While teleological language can be a useful shorthand in biology ('the heart exists to pump blood'), it becomes fallacious when the attribution of purpose is taken literally and used to derive normative or causal conclusions — especially in domains like evolution, history, or economics where no intentional design has been demonstrated.

Non sequitur (Latin: 'it does not follow') is the broad formal fallacy in which the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. While many specific fallacies are technically non sequiturs, the term is applied when the logical gap is stark and cannot be classified under a more specific fallacy category. The conclusion may be true or false independently, but the argument provides no valid logical path from premises to conclusion, and the disconnect is too fundamental to be attributed to a missing premise.