While reading Douglas Walton's "Historical Origins of Argumentum ad Consequentiam", I realized there is at least one argument style that appears reasonable but which has been labelled as a logical fallacy only recently.
Walton writes: (page 251)
In fact, argumentation from consequences was identified as a specific type of argument with a distinctive form in the ancient world, was known to the ancients as such, and does have a long history. However, it did not appear to be recognized as a fallacy in the ancient sources. That recognition as a fallacy appears to have come much later, in a nineteenth century logic textbook.
What I am looking for are other argumentation styles that became named fallacies only recently. The argumentation from consequences would be one example of what I am looking for.
Are there any others?
References to studies like Walton's showing the recent labeling of the argumentation style as a fallacy would provide justification for any answer.
Possible candidates that have emerged.
- (1903) Moore's naturalistic fallacy (thanks to Conifold)
- (1941) C. S. Lewis' bulverism (thanks to Conifold)
Walton, D. (1999). Historical origins of argumentum ad consequentiam. Argumentation, 13(3), 251-264. http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/99origins.pdf