 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Logical Fallacies
So, what is
a logical fallacy? And what the heck does it have to do with
Bible study? Well, in short, a logical fallacy is an error
in reasoning. In formal argumentation, (such as debate or
persuasive writing) arguments take a standard format of premise
(what we know) and conclusions (what we can deduce from what
we know.) In more practical terms, logical fallacies are argument
forms that we should not be persuaded by.
Why shouldn't we be persuaded by them? Well, each logical
fallacy is different, but in general, because the premises
do not actually lead to the conclusions. These methods may
be employed by authors, teachers, and ministers in all fields
whether they are deliberately aware of it or not.
Some of these are silly and others are somewhat hard to understand
(and even harder to identify in action.) There are many forms
of logical fallacies. The list below is only a partial list
of some of the more common forms.
In our opinion, the logical fallacies most commonly practiced
by members of the Church community are appeals to emotion,
untestability, ad hominem, and (among the scholarly) a fallacy
we like to call "Quantity of Quotes." It is also our opinion
that if these were pointed out whenever they occurred at weekly
Church sermons or Bible Study groups, you would almost entirely
empty these events from any verbal content. This in turn demonstrates
the need for the modern Church to return to a logical approach
to truth evaluation.
There is one other important item to note. People, in general,
whether trying to persuade others or just express themselves,
tend to phrase things in such a way as to make it sound acceptable
to those who hear them. As such they may often use words that
have ambiguous or vague meanings.
When this phenomenon is done deliberately, whether malevalently
(to manipulate or decieve) or benevelently (in order to "preserve
unity" or to avoid conflict or offending someone), it inevitably
results in deceptive communication. A large part of critical
thinking involves clearly defining terms, using clearly defined
terms, and identifying when others are not using clearly defined
terms, especially when they are doing so deliberately. A great
deal of arguments and positions are sustained by the use of
confusing or ambiguous terminology.
If you should happen to find any of these faulty argument
forms in our writings, please let us know.
Here are some of the most common logical fallacies. (This
list was created by compiling information from varying sources.)
Appeals to Emotions Instead of Support
Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by
force
Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by
sympathy
Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable
consequences
Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached
to believing the author
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because
it is widely held to be true
Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument
(or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the
conclusion
Ad hominem: You attack the person instead of the person's
argument or point of view on a subject.
the person's character is attacked
the person's circumstances are noted
the person does not practice what is preached
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Equivocation: the same term is used with two different
meanings
Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different
interpretations. Example: Last night I shot a burglar in my
pyjamas.
Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a
meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says. (Example
- the captain was sober this morning, or, "It would be illegal
to give away Free Beer!"
Faulty Appeal to Authority: citing an authority who
may not have expertise on the subject or using phrases like
"Sources close to" or "Experts claim."
the authority is not an expert in the field
experts in the field disagree
the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way
not being
Quantity of Quotes: Assuming that the number of citations
and quotes from other authors attests to the validity of the
presented conclusions. Conversely, the less quotes and citations,
the less valid the conclusions.
We have coined this fourth form of a false appeal to authority
to reflect what we believe is a common trend in scholarly
writing on any academic issue, unfortunately including theology.
Although this is true for any subject, the more controversial
the subject the worse the fallacy. This is actually a scholarly
form of the Popularity fallacy. This may be particularly coupled
with a failure to address the oppositions strongest arguments
(Straw Man) while at the same time stacking your book or message
with quotes from other people who support your conclusions
(Card Stacking).
Missing the Point
Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is
assumed by the premises
Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one
conclusion instead proves a different conclusion
Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different
from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument
Begging the question: Asking the reader to assume that
something is true without proving it first - especially flawed
if that "something" is controversial. This often involves
the inclusion of a hidden, or unstated premise. This may take
the particular form of a controversial and unproven premise
which is essential to proving a conclusion.
Red herring argument: You intentionally digress from
the real issue being discussed, introducing a side issue that
has nothing to do with the real issue under discussion--in
an attempt to remove attention from the real issue. This is
often very subtle and the new issue can often seem closely
related to the real issue.
Fallacies of Explanation
Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be
tested)
Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain
one thing)
Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal
to underlying causes)
Fallacies of Distraction
Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable
consequences is drawn
Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined
as a single proposition
False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there
are other possible options
False Dilemma a.k.a. the Either/Or Fallacy: A limited
number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality
there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate
use of the "or" operator. You assume that taking a certain
viewpoint or course of action will result in one of two diametrically
opposed outcomes (no other outcomes possible).
Fallacies of Definition
Too Broad (The definition includes items which should
not be included)
Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the
items which shouls be included)
Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult
to understand than the word or concept being defined)
Circular Definition (The definition includes the term
being defined as a part of the definition)
Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)
Causal Fallacies
Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, the second
s held to be caused by the first
Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when
in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause
Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another,
and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes
of the effect
Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect
is reversed
Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part
of the entire cause of the effect
Non sequitur fallacy: Literally translate, "It does
not follow." This is an even more illogical connection of
cause/effect, in which Event A clearly has nothing to do with
Event B. The evidence offered does not support the conclusion
that is reached.
Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form:
If A then B, B, therefore A
Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If
A then B, Not A, thus Not B
Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory
statements are both true
Inductive Fallacies
Sweeping or hasty generalization: the sample is too
small to support an inductive generalization about a population.
You've reached a conclusion based on only a little evidence
that might be relevant but is not typical.
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative
of the sample as a whole
False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared
are relevantly dissimilar; You assume that because two things
share some characteristics, they are alike in all respects.
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the
outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration
Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms
Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances
suggest that there should be an exception
Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances
where a generalization should apply
Category Errors
Composition: because the attributes of the parts of
a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole
has that property
Division: because the whole has a certain property,
it is argued that the parts have that property
Card stacking: If someone says, "The cards were stacked
against me," the speaker is saying he/she was never given
a fair chance. This is a complicated one--one side may distort
evidence or facts presented, suppress evidence, oversimplify
or even suppress facts, etc.
Syllogistic Errors
Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms
Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said
to be connected because they share a common property
Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks
about all of something, but the premises only mention some
cases of the term in the predicate
Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks
about all of something, but the premises only mention some
cases of the term in the subject
Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two
negative premises
Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a
Negative Premise: as the name implies
Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn
from universal premises
|
 |
|
 |

Related
Items
|
 |