Description: Latin for ‘after this, therefore because of this’, this fallacy is committed when people confuse correlation for causation and assume that because one event followed another, the former was caused by the latter. Of course, while this may be the case, it is by no means certain. The two events may be completely independent for example, or there may be a third element that in fact caused both events.
Description: When someone claims that the fact that everyone called them crazy means they must be right, because 'they called Galileo crazy' (or some other person who was historically dismissed then turned out to be right), they are committing a fallacy. They are forgetting that the vast majority of people in history who were called crazy weren't misunderstood geniuses, they were, in fact, crazy.
Description: When supporting your claims by comparing two things, it's important to be consistent in terms of what you're actually comparing. If you are not fair when setting up the parameters, and you end up comparing the two in different ways, you are engaging in the fallacy of Inconsistent Comparison.
Description: The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy describes a situation where someone collects or examines a large amount of data without deciding in advance exactly what they’re testing, then chooses a sample which provides evidence for their existing opinion. It’s based on a story where an inexperienced gunman fires indiscriminately at the side of a barn, and then draws a target around the largest cluster of bullet holes.