Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Extremes

The logical fallacy of appeal to extremes occurs when a premise or conclusion is taken to an extreme that was not intended by the person who originally stated the premise or conclusion. This is a type of the extension fallacy which is a type of straw man argument. It is similar to the fallacy of slippery slope in that they both use emotion to extrapolate beyond what is reasonable. The difference is that slippery slope gives an imagined sequence of events leading to the extreme where the fallacy of appeal to extremes doesn't necessarily do so. Appeal to extremes can take the form of arguing against something by calling it "exteme," or it can be erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. The appeal to extremes fallacy is not the use of examples that are perceived to be extreme, nor is it holding a position that the other person considers to be extreme.

This fallacy is a misuse of reductio ad absurdum, which is legitimate reasoning. It is logical and helpful to take statements to their extreme to check the truth of the matter, looking for exceptions and seeing whether the statements leads to anything absurd. If there are exceptions to a statement, then the statement needs to be modified, or it might have to be dropped altogether. However, this fallacy is not about taking things to the extreme examples that would be true if the statement were true. This fallacy is about using imagination to extend reality beyond what the information allows.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Extremes

Bill Nye, debating creation versus evolution: "we’re supposed to take your word for it—this Book, written centuries ago, translated into American English is somehow more important that what I can see with my own eyes, is an extraordinary claim."

The problem is that this claim was never made. This is an example of the logical fallacy of appeal to extremes.

Bill Nye, debating creation versus evolution: "Your assertion that all the animals were vegetarians before they got on the Ark . . ."

Bill Nye is using a straw man fallacy. Specifically, it is the logical fallacy of appeal to extremes. Ken Ham never asserted that all the animals were vegetarians before they got on the Ark. In fact, all the animals were vegetarians before the fall. There were obvious changes that took place with the fall. The very good creation was not so good after the fall. The change that took place after the flood was that God gave the animals to mankind for food and God put the fear of man into the animals. We really don't know if there were any other changes, except for the scientific evidence for the continental sprint that caused the separation of the Americas.