Law of the Valid Fallacies

The principle that there exists a class of arguments that are technically fallacious by formal standards yet genuinely valid in practice—reasoning that works even though it breaks the rules. These "valid fallacies" include arguments that persuade reasonable people despite logical flaws, inferences that lead to true conclusions through invalid steps, and reasoning that succeeds where formal logic fails. The law of the valid fallacies acknowledges that human reasoning is richer than formal logic, and that sometimes the technically invalid is practically sound. It's the logic of "it shouldn't work, but it does," of the intuitive leaps that turn out right, of the arguments that convince because they're right even though they're wrong by the book.

Example: "Her argument was technically fallacious—circular reasoning, begging the question. But it was also true, and everyone knew it. The law of the valid fallacies said: sometimes the fallacy is valid. The circularity didn't make it false; it just made it formally invalid. Formal invalidity and practical truth can coexist."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Possible Fallacies

The principle that for any argument, it is possible to interpret it as fallacious—there is always some way to apply a fallacy label, regardless of the argument's actual merit. The law acknowledges that fallacy-mongering is infinite: given enough creativity, you can find an ad hominem, a straw man, a slippery slope in any discourse. This possibility doesn't mean all arguments are fallacious; it means fallacy labeling is not objective. It's a rhetorical move, not a logical judgment. The law of the possible fallacies warns against the weaponization of fallacy terminology—just because you can call something a fallacy doesn't mean it is one.

Example: "He could find a fallacy in any argument, no matter how sound. Straw man? You're oversimplifying. Ad hominem? You're attacking the person. Slippery slope? You're predicting disaster. The law of the possible fallacies explained: it's always possible to see a fallacy if you want to. The question was whether the fallacy was real or just his imagination."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Fallacy Possibility

The principle that fallacies represent possibilities, not certainties—they identify ways reasoning could go wrong, not guarantees that it has. Calling an argument a slippery slope doesn't prove it's wrong; it identifies a possibility of error that must be evaluated. Calling an argument ad hominem doesn't settle the matter; it raises a possibility that must be assessed. The law of the fallacy possibility reminds us that fallacy labels are hypotheses, not verdicts. They open inquiry rather than closing it. The real work is not in naming the fallacy but in determining whether it actually occurred—whether the possibility is actual.

Example: "She said his argument was a slippery slope. He agreed it was possible, then asked for evidence that the slope would actually slide. The law of the fallacy possibility said: naming the possibility doesn't prove it's real. The debate shifted from labeling to evidence, which is where it should have been all along."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Absolute and Relative Fallacies

The principle that fallacies operate in two modes: absolute fallacies (errors that are fallacious in all contexts, by any reasonable standard) and relative fallacies (errors that are fallacious in some contexts but may be acceptable or even valid in others). The law acknowledges that some fallacies are universally wrong—affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, non sequiturs that genuinely don't follow. Other fallacies are context-dependent—appeals to emotion that are appropriate in some settings, ad hominem that is relevant, slippery slopes that sometimes happen. The law of absolute and relative fallacies reconciles the need for logical standards with the reality of contextual reasoning.

Law of the Absolute and Relative Fallacies Example: "They debated whether his emotional appeal was fallacious. Absolute fallacies: non sequiturs, formal errors—he hadn't committed those. Relative fallacies: emotional appeals can be fallacious in some contexts, appropriate in others. Here, asking for compassion was relevant. The law said: relatively, not absolutely fallacious. She accepted the nuance, which is rare in online arguments."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Spectral Fallacies

The principle that fallacies exist on a spectrum between absolute and relative, with infinite gradations and multiple dimensions. Under this law, no fallacy is purely absolute or purely relative—each occupies a position in spectral space defined by its universality, its context-dependence, its severity, its typical effects. The ad hominem fallacy is near the relative end (sometimes valid, depending on relevance); formal fallacies like affirming the consequent are nearer the absolute end (almost always errors); most fallacies are somewhere in between. The law of the spectral fallacies recognizes that fallacy evaluation is not binary but continuous, that what counts as fallacious varies across contexts, and that the question isn't "is it a fallacy?" but "where on the spectrum of fallaciousness does this argument fall?"

Law of the Spectral Fallacies Example: "She analyzed his argument using spectral fallacies, mapping it across dimensions: formal validity (low), contextual appropriateness (medium), persuasive effect (high), potential for harm (low). The spectral coordinates showed why some listeners cried fallacy while others found it compelling. The argument wasn't simply fallacious or not; it was fallacious in some dimensions, effective in others. The spectrum captured what binaries missed."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Fallacy of Impossible Induction

The mistaken belief that because complete induction (examining every case) is impossible, no inductive conclusion can be trusted. This fallacy rejects all generalizations on the grounds that we haven't examined every instance—ignoring that induction works by sampling, not census. It's the logic of "you haven't read every book, so you can't say books exist," of "you haven't met every French person, so you can't generalize about French culture." The fallacy of impossible induction is beloved of those who want to dismiss well-supported generalizations by demanding impossible standards of proof. It's a cousin of the perfect knowledge fallacy, and just as paralyzing.

Fallacy of Impossible Induction Example: "She cited studies showing the benefits of exercise. He responded with the fallacy of impossible induction: 'But you haven't studied every person who ever exercised. How do you know it works for everyone?' She said science doesn't require studying everyone; it requires representative samples. He said that wasn't proof. She said that was how proof works. He remained unconvinced, which was his right, but also his loss."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 17, 2026

Fallacy of Exhaustive Induction

The mistaken belief that only exhaustive induction—examining every possible case—can establish truth. This fallacy rejects all probabilistic, statistical, or sampling-based reasoning as insufficient, demanding certainty that is rarely available and never necessary. It's the logic of "you can't prove all swans are white until you've seen every swan," ignoring that science doesn't prove in that sense. The fallacy of exhaustive induction is the mirror image of the fallacy of impossible induction: both set impossible standards, one by rejecting induction entirely, the other by demanding a form of induction that's rarely possible. Together, they form a pincer movement against any empirical claim.

Fallacy of Exhaustive Induction Example: "He demanded exhaustive proof that climate change was real: 'Have you measured every temperature reading everywhere on Earth for the last hundred years?' No, because that's impossible. But you don't need exhaustive proof; you need representative proof. He demanded the impossible and therefore rejected the possible. The fallacy had done its work: blocking belief with an unmeetable standard."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 17, 2026