Fallacy Fallacy is concluding that because an argument contained a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0294, within the Relevance Fallacy family. The core principle: concluding that because an argument contained a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
Scientific Definition
Concluding that because an argument contained a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.
Plain-English Definition
Concluding that because an argument contained a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.
Feynman Explanation
Bad arguments for true conclusions still happen.
Core Principle
Concluding that because an argument contained a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.
Mechanisms
Concluding that because an argument contained a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
Bad arguments for true conclusions still happen.
Examples
- Dismissing a sound recommendation because the person made one logical slip.
- Insight discarded for stylistic reasons.
Pending editorial review.
Original analysis from The Incentives Lab — how this element behaves inside real payoff structures.
Why this element matters to incentive design
The mistake with this element is treating it as irrationality. It is almost always a rational response to a payoff nobody wrote down. The mechanism underneath it is straightforward: concluding that because an argument contained a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. You can recognize it in the field by its signature: bad arguments for true conclusions still happen. Every element in the Cognition dimension changes the perceived payoff of an action before the action happens, which is exactly where incentive design has leverage.
How it gets exploited
Left undesigned, insight discarded for stylistic reasons. It is amplified whenever insight discarded for stylistic reasons. Inside organizations that shows up as insight discarded for stylistic reasons. The pattern is the same one Goodhart's Law describes: the measurable proxy attracts the effort, and the purpose behind it quietly loses funding.
How the Lab designs around it
The redesign move is to make the desired behavior observable, remove whatever currently pays for its opposite, and attach the reward to the behavior rather than to the noisy outcome downstream of it. The leverage is not in explaining the behavior to people. It is in changing what the behavior earns.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
Pending editorial review.
Measurement Approaches
Pending editorial review.
Evidence
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
The Perverse Incentive Lens™
How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Interactive Mini Network
Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.
Knowledge Graph Neighbors
Auto-linked to the rest of the Human Behavior Taxonomy by family, domain, dimension, and shared keywords.
Attacking the person rather than the argument.
It's true because authority says so.
Common sense says so, therefore it's true.
Believing something is true because of the consequences of its truth.
Claiming something is true because it hasn't been proven false (or vice versa).
If it's 'natural,' it's good.
It's better because it's newer.
It's right because it's how we've always done it.
I can't believe it; therefore it isn't true.
Saying it enough times until it sounds true.
It's true because many believe it.
Asking the other side to disprove an unsupported claim.
Where Fallacy Fallacy is cited in the corpus
Essays, field guides, and diagnostics from The Incentives Lab that apply this element.
- EssayGoodhart's Law in the Real World
How measurable proxies capture judgment.
- EssayThe Perverse Incentives Hiding in Your KPIs
Cognitive shortcuts turned into scorecards.
- CourseIncentives 101
The free ten-part primer on reading a payoff structure.
- ReferenceThe incentive glossary
Definitions for every mental model, bias, and fallacy in the corpus.
- ReferenceThe Periodic Table of Human Behavior
The full 1,267-element map this page belongs to.
Questions about Fallacy Fallacy
- What is Fallacy Fallacy?
- Fallacy Fallacy is concluding that because an argument contained a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0294, within the Relevance Fallacy family. The core principle: concluding that because an argument contained a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
- What is an example of Fallacy Fallacy?
- Insight discarded for stylistic reasons. The Incentives Lab catalogs everyday, organizational, and historical instances of this element on its Human Behavior Taxonomy™ page (HBT-COG-0294).
- How is Fallacy Fallacy exploited?
- Insight discarded for stylistic reasons.
- How do you design around Fallacy Fallacy?
- Name the behavior you want in observable terms, remove what currently pays for the opposite, attach the reward to the behavior rather than a lagging proxy, and publish how you will detect gaming.
- Which behavioral dimension does Fallacy Fallacy belong to?
- Fallacy Fallacy is classified in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™, family "Relevance Fallacy", class "Logical Fallacy". Its permanent identifier is HBT-COG-0294 and its evidence grade is B.