The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. This exchange is also a demonstration of the logical fallacy of equivocation. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning. An incorrect inference is known as a fallacy. It is a form of argument from authority fallacy. Judicial or academic reasoning which assumes the contrary has been described as a "fusion fallacy". An argument that contains a formal fallacy will always be invalid. This is similar to Theseus' paradox and the Continuum fallacy. It is a cure for ignorance and fallacy. Canadian philosopher Christopher Tindale approaches somewhat different the "tu quoque" fallacy. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. However, this belief is often given as an example of the broken window fallacy. Poisoned-well arguments are sometimes used with preemptive invocations of the association fallacy. He named this confusion the naturalistic fallacy. This is incorrect and is an example of the gambler's fallacy.