People love lists of models, fallacies, and cognitive biases. I don't think any list of them can be authoritative though because they all slice the concepts up

People love lists of models, fallacies, and cognitive biases. I don't think any list of them can be authoritative though because they all slice the concepts up differently. But when well-presented I think lists like these are still valuable because they're entertaining to review, and can remind people of how to be better thinkers. My theory is that pretty much any bias or fallacy can be derived from simpler rules of causation - truth, and the logic of necessity and sufficiency. Appeal to Authority: Is it really true that if A says x is true, that x is really true? Is x really true? Confirmation bias: Is it really true that if I want x to be true, it is true? Is x really true? Survivorship bias: Is it really true that if x is true, that this set of x's causes were sufficient to yield x? Is this set of x's causes always sufficient to yield x? etc, etc.