Believe women.
Read More →
Trigger warning: suicide and murder.
The Massachusetts v. Lindsay Clancy case is coming to a close, yet the discourse around the court case continues to swirl on social media, despite being provided further evidence and testimony. The internet is divided. On one side, there are those who believe the defense’s argument is that Lindsay Clancy killed her three young children, but lacks criminality for her conduct because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time. On the other side, people believe that Lindsay Clancy’s husband, Patrick Clancy committed the murders and attempted to kill Lindsay and framed her by implanting false memories that she did it.
In argument for the Patrick Clancy theory, many have resorted to using logical fallacies, as the theory works hard to find any real evidence in the case.
Logical fallacies are arguments that may initially sound convincing or true, but are logically flawed and use weak reasoning that can easily be disproved.
We publish a Logical Fallacies Series to help people to be aware of logical fallacies so that you can recognize when someone is using them to manipulate you or the information they’re trying to present. Keeping aware of these types of arguments will also help you spot misinformation and propaganda faster.
Once you learn to recognize logical fallacies quicker in an argument, it makes it easy to disprove them with some basic critical thinking, reason, and common sense.
Below, we’ll tackle a few logical fallacies we saw used recently around the Clancy case. Real life examples are not as cut and dry as examples you may see when Googling logical fallacy definitions, so we’ll break down some simple examples and then real life examples to help you spot them better in the wild.
Note: We believe and hold that the defense’s argument is that Lindsay Clancy killed her three young children, but lacks criminality for her conduct because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time, since that is their stated argument. Whether that is what the jury will determine as the verdict or not is yet to be determined. This article is written with the clear understanding that much of what has been presented about Patrick Clancy in the social media discourse is misinformation, and we will not mince words about it.
Ad Hominem Attack Logical Fallacy
Argumentum ad hominem means “argument on the human” in Latin. This type of logical fallacy is a diversionary tactic to distract from the main claim or point, and this is similar to other Red Herring type of fallacies. (We’ll get into more of those in another article).
This is when someone attacks another person’s character or personal traits as an attempt to undermine their argument or claims, without addressing the substance of the argument.
A Simple Example
“What he’s claiming is wrong because he’s a lying asshole, so you can’t believe anything he says.”
How to Counter This Fallacy
To argue against an ad hominem fallacy, it’s important to shift the focus from the person back to the claims and rebuttals.
So for the argument above, instead of arguing that the claim is wrong because he’s a lying asshole, one needs to focus on why the claim is wrong. If the person has a pattern of lying, that may be worth asserting, but for the argument to be a strong one, it still needs to be less about who is making the claim and more about the merit of the claim.
A Real Life Example of an Ad Hominem Fallacy:
This has been a common fallacy in the discourse around the Lindsay Clancy case. The most common one we’ve seen has been when anyone tries to correct misinformation in regards to Patrick Clancy, people are quick in the comments to dismiss these arguments by claiming that that commenter is “defending the patriarchy” or misogynists for “defending a man”. They leap straight to calling the person a misogynist without bothering to explain why that might be.
This is logically flawed because the people on the other side of the argument are likely not arguing against the Patrick Clancy theory because they are supporting the patriarchy, intentionally or subversively. They likely are arguing against the Patrick Clancy theory because it is full of misinformation and logically flawed.
To avoid this fallacy, the people arguing the Patrick Clancy theory would be better to stick to defending their claims, rather than attacking the people providing corrections to the information presented.
False Dilemma Logical Fallacy
This fallacy is sometimes also called the “Either-Or” fallacy. This fallacy is when the claimant asserts that either X is true or Y is true, ignoring other possible options and only asserting two extremes. Typically, one extreme looks like damnation while the other is framed as salvation, forcing one’s hand to choose what the arguing party wants you to choose.
A Simple Example
“You’re against ICE? Then you support letting criminals into our neighborhoods and communities.”
The logical fallacy here is assuming that you either support letting in criminals into our communities or you support ICE. This ignores and dismisses the nuance of why someone might be against ICE, which is typically because of the inhumane treatment of people who have done nothing wrong, or at most, have committed minor infractions. It also over-conflates the consequence of opposing ICE; immigrants are not criminals.
How to Counter This Fallacy
Spotting this fallacy is the first step to counter it.
To spot it, LogicallyFallacious.com says: (1)
- Ask: Are there really only two options? Pause and brainstorm alternatives. In most real-world scenarios, more than two paths exist.
- Look for absolute language: Words like “only,” “must,” “either…or,” and “can’t” signal potential false dilemmas. They narrow the scope artificially.
- Check for missing middle ground: Does the argument ignore compromise, gradual change, or hybrid approaches?
- Examine the stakes: Is one option presented as catastrophic while the other is presented as the only salvation? This imbalance often masks a false dilemma.
Once you identify it as a false dilemma fallacy, you can consider what other options may exist, in order to counter with those potential options.
A Real Life Example
In court, both the prosecution and defense have continuously brought up things that Lindsay Clancy had searched for on Google prior to the event. One of the things she searched for were “carotid artery” along with “how to slit your neck to die”.
The Patrick Clancy conspiracy theorists have clung to that first search, saying that a registered nurse would never google “carotid artery” because they know what it is. Thus, it must have been Patrick Clancy who was using Lindsay’s phone to look up phrases related to suicide in order to frame her.
One can make the argument that this is an example of a false dilemma logical fallacy because this statement assumes that when someone is googling something, they either are searching it on google because they don’t know what it is, or someone else is trying to frame them for the search. It ignores other reasons people use Google to search for things, such as to bring up diagrams or images of something that they do know about.
A counter example to their argument: My recent searches include “false dilemma fallacy”. I know what that fallacy is, or I wouldn’t have known to recognize it in this argument, but in order to ensure accuracy for this article, I looked it up to ensure I was wording the explanation correctly and not leaving out anything important. Likewise, a registered nurse interested in suicide methods may have known to look up carotid artery because it was relevant, and may have searched it on Google in order to look at diagrams, refresh their memory, or ensure they were precise in their potential suicide methods.
Shifting Goal Posts Logical Fallacy
Shifting the goalposts is a logical fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and greater evidence is demanded, making it impossible for an opponent to successfully reach the intended objective. This keeps the opponent from ever being able to win the argument because the argument keeps shifting.
Some ways this shows up in real life are through escalating demands, shifting definitions, and unattainable criteria. (2)
A Simple Example
Provided by Logical Report:
Person A: “Show me scientific evidence that climate change is real.”
Person B: “Here are several peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate the reality of climate change.”
Person A: “Well, those studies don’t prove anything because they don’t show that climate change is entirely caused by human activity.”
In this example, Person A is demanding evidence that climate change is real. When provided evidence of climate change from Person B, Person A changes the criteria, by including that Person B must show that climate change is caused by human activity.
How to Counter This Fallacy
To counter this fallacy, you have to make sure the criteria of the argument or discussion are set. If the criteria is clear, it makes it harder for them to shift the goal posts. If the discussion is in good faith, recognize that sometimes, someone mistakenly didn’t provide the full criteria they may have had in their head. Be open to revision and discussing clarity over the criteria, to be able to better understand each other.
A Real Life Example
(Paraphrased to protect the person’s identity)
Person on Threads: How could you not believe he’s the killer? He killed them because he wanted the family gone so he could start over with his mistress. He’s a family annihilator.
Me: Except he called 911 before his wife passed, so that she didn’t die, so he didn’t seem to want the whole family gone. He saved her when he didn’t have to and he tried to revive his kids. Why would he do that if he wanted the whole family gone?
Person on Threads: Well he couldn’t let her die or it’d be too suspicious. He needed to frame her for the children’s deaths.
This is more of an example of when definitions of the discussion shift. The goal post here starts out that Patrick Clancy wanted the whole family dead so he could move on. It then shifts to, “well he wanted only some of the family dead, so that he could frame their deaths on Lindsay.”
So he didn’t want the whole family dead, per se, or he would have let Lindsay perish before calling 911. From here, you could go further into the flaw of the logic, that he banked on her not remembering what happened, so that he could then, according to the theories, implant memories for her that she was the one who killed the children, and hope that she never remembered the truth.
We could go on. We’ll leave it there.
Appeal to Authority Logical Fallacy
“Argumentum ad verecundiam”, or argument out of respect. It’s the logical fallacy where one asserts a claim is true based on the advice or recommendation by an improper authority. (3)
Because an authority thinks something, it must be true. The issue with this logical fallacy is that authority can have flaws, be irrelevant, or may also not have all the details, as is the case with our example below. This logical fallacy is no longer fallacious if the authority is relevant and proper.
A Simple Example
“I googled it, so I’m right.”
The issue here is that Google has access to a lot of information, but by itself, it is not an authority on the manner, even though it’s often treated like an authority on information. It’s simply an information aggregator, and it’s on the person using the tool to decipher which information is correct, relevant, and proper.
How to Counter This Fallacy
It’s important to check the credentials of the expert cited by the arguer. Are they relevant? Are they the correct expert for this claim or issue? Do they have all the information to be able to exert their expertise over the situation through advice or recommendations? If the answer is no, then they are an improper authority to appeal to in this argument, and thus the logic is flawed.
A Real Life Example
Consistently, people in comments have been asserting that they saw a lawyer, doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist on TikTok or Instagram chiming in with their “expert” opinion on this court case, and that “expert” affirmed that Patrick Clancy was the real killer.
There are a lot of issues with this.
One, it needs to be said that anyone can claim to be an expert on TikTok or Instagram, and oftentimes there’s little provided to prove it. Additionally, their specific experience or expertise may not be relevant to the case, and that is likely not checked or confirmed.
Two, a professional and expert should understand that they are not working with all of the information. In the court case, yes, a lot of evidence gets submitted throughout the trial, however this information is not everything that will be provided to the jury, nor is it everything that they have collected in their work on the case.
This is not to say that the experts used in court cases aren’t sometimes flawed or irrelevant, themselves, but you can assume that the experts in this Clancy case are working with far more information than those on social media. In today’s trial, August 25, one expert psychologist who took the stand said this case was the most documentation he’s ever seen for any case like it, and he spent months going through it all to come to his conclusion.
The TikTok psychologists chiming in did not spend months going through all of the documentation, or any of it for that matter, and thus should probably be considered improper.
Question Everything, As Usual
Not to sound too retro, but we really should bring back the good ol’ saying, “Don’t believe everything you see on the internet.” That adage treated us well for the earlier decades of the internet, and it’s time we remind ourselves of its importance.
Subscribe For Our Series On Logical Fallacies
We could go on and on through the discourse around this court case, as it’s rife with manipulative arguments and logical fallacies, but we’ll leave this at that for now.
We have more articles for this series where we’ll cover formal and information logical fallacies, including some common ones and some lesser known fallacies.
The more you learn about logical fallacies, the more you’ll notice them in the media and politician’s speeches, and it’ll help you pick out misinformation and propaganda easier.
Sources
- Logically Fallacious Team. (2026, June 5) “False Dilemma Fallacy: How to Spot Either-Or Arguments”. Logically Fallacious. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/blog/false-dilemma-fallacy-either-or-arguments
- Geo, Sir. “Moving the Goalposts”. Logical Report. (Accessed August 25, 2026). https://www.logicalreport.com/page-43/MovingTheGoalposts/index.html
- “Ad Verecundiam (Argument from Authority) Explained with Examples”. Philosophy.lander.edu. https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html