Aristotle
b. 384 BC d. 322 BC
The history of fallacies begins with Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations. Within this work, Aristotle explained the background of fallacies ("sophistical refutations") by defining them, using basic concepts to explain them, and explaining why they were deceptive. Additionally, Aristotle also created and classified the following fallacies: equivocation, amphiboly, combination of words, division of words, accent, form of expression, accident, secundum quid, consequent, non-cause, begging the question, ignoratio elenchi, and many questions.
John Stuart Mill
b. 1806 d. 1873
Mill is credited with creating the most extensive work on fallacies since Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations, which was called A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. Within the book, he classified logical fallacies into different groups, and also differentiated between moral and intellectual causes of fallacies--moral causes being biases we can't help and therefore not necessary fallacious causes, and intellectual causes being intentional and fallacious.
John Locke
b. 1632 d. 1704
Locke is credited with conceptualizing three ad-fallacies: argumentum ad verecundiam (which Arnauld and Nicole laid the groundwork for), argumentum ad ignorantiam, and argumentum ad hominem. Two of these fallacies have developed further since Locke initially conceived of them, and these are ad verecundiam, which initially had more to do with modesty or shame than expertise, and ad hominem, which later developed into 3 separate fallacies.
Antoine Arnauld
b. 1612 d. 1694
Arnauld, along with Pierre Nicole, co-wrote Logic, or the Art of Thinking, which is also known as "Port-Royal Logic." He and Nicole referred to fallacies as "sophisms," and they included 8 of Aristotle's fallacies as well as some of their own. These new fallacies included post hoc ergo propter hoc, imperfect enumeration, and faulty induction (which we now refer to as hasty generalization). Additionally, Arnauld and Nicole also laid the groundwork for fallacies like argumentum ad verecundiam (faulty use of authority).
Pierre Nicole
b. 1625 d. 1695
Nicole, along with Antoine Arnauld, co-wrote Logic, or the Art of Thinking, which is also known as "Port-Royal Logic." For more information, see Antoine Arnauld's entry above.
Isaac Watts
b. 1674 d. 1748
Watts in Logick; or, The Right Use of Reason, contributed to fallacy history by creating argumentum ad fidem (appeal to faith), argumentum ad passiones (appeal to passion), and argumentum ad populum. Additionally, Watts gave the fallacy causa non pro causa the alternative name of "false cause," and he also set up some of the groundwork for the straw man fallacy.
Richard Whately
b. 1787 d. 1863
Whately was a huge part of in the revival of interest in logic at the beginning of the 1800s, particularly with Book 3 of his Elements of Logic. In particular, his major contribution to fallacy theory was dividing fallacies into two classes: (1) deductive failures, also known as logical fallacies; (2) non-logical failures, also known as material fallacies.
A note from the author: this is not a comprehensive list of every person who has ever contributed to fallacy theory. Additionally, it is important to note that much of the information about these people and their contributions to fallacy theory came from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on fallacies and Encyclopædia Britannica.
Contributors to Fallacy History
Other Notable Contributors
1. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): Bentham wrote extensively about how logic played into political debate, and contributed to the development of the following fallacies: ad verecundiam, ad odium (appeal to hate), ad metum (appeal to fear), ad quietem (appeal to rest/inaction), ad judicium (appeal to common sense/judgement), and ad socordiam (appeal to postponement/delay).
​
2. Irving Copi (1917-2002): Copi made a lasting impact in fallacy theory through his distinction between formal fallacies (which he defined as closely resembling valid arguments) and informal fallacies (which he defined as not resembling valid arguments, but being alluring in other ways).
Curious about why it matters to learn about fallacy history? If so, click here!