Despite the absence of adequate scientific evidence, disulfiram has been prescribed for decades and is still largely advocated. As the arguments sustaining its use cannot be evidence based, they have to be founded on other properties in order to be effective. The present paper reviews different forms of fallacies used to sustain disulfiram's efficacy. We formulate the hypothesis that the frequency of consented use of fallacious arguments (or even sophisms) within an otherwise supposedly evidence based discipline may be indicative of (a) a scientifically immature discipline, and/or (b) a moralistically intermingled discipline. Inversely, the progressive decrease of sophisms should then be suggestive of scientific maturation.