3. Informal Fallacies
1 Introduction
to Informal Fallacies
Arguments
fail when the conclusion does not follow necessarily or probably from the
premises. A formal fallacy is a logical error that occurs in the form or
structure of an argument and is restricted to deductive arguments. An informal
fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that occurs in ordinary language and is
different from an error in the form or structure of arguments because informal
fallacies are mistakes in the content of an argument. A mistake in the content
of the premises.
There are
five kinds of fallacies that we will look at. 1. Those related to ad hominem-an
attack on the person making the argument as oppose to the argument itself. 2.
Those based on emotional appeal - these rely on the arousal of a strong
emotional state or psychological reaction to get you to accept a conclusion. 3.
The Generalization fallacies – these occur when there is a mistaken
application of a generalization leading the premise(s) to supply a very weak
support for the truth of the conclusion. 4. False Cause Fallacies or
fallacies of presumption – these occur when a causal connection is assumed
to exist between two events even though none actually exists, or when the
assumed causal connection is unlikely to exist. 5. Fallacies of diversion
– these occur when the meanings of terms or phrases are changed (intentionally
or unintentionally) within the argument, or when our attention is purposely (or
accidentally) diverted from the issue at hand.
2 Personal
Attacks
For this
first round we will look at Ad hominem Abusive, Ad hominem circumstantial,
Poisoning the well and Tu quoque. These can be recognized when someone’s
argument focuses on the person making the claim as opposed to the argument
itself.
Ad hominem
abusive: This occurs when someone attacks purported character flaws of a person
instead of the person’s argument. This fallacy involves bringing negative
aspects of an arguer, or their situation, to bear on the view they are
advancing.
In the
Chris Brown song “Need a Stack” Chris Brown says That only prefers sexual
relations with African American women with “the nice hair"
The
concept of black women with “the nice hair” is a concept originating connotes a
preference for black women with lighter-skin, straighter hair and a possible
non-African Ancestry. This is a concept well known in the black community. If
an a musician says they prefer black women with “the nice hair” it can be
assumed that the musician is saying they prefer black women with lighter-skin,
straighter hair and a possible non-African Ancestry.
People
called Chris Brown out on this and in one defense of his lyrics, Chris Brown
asked his critics on Instagram to post pictures of themselves. He was arguing
that only “ugly black women” were upset at him.
"Okay, challenge. All the angry
uglies that's mad at what I said. Post a picture of what you look like,
please," he said in a video. The "Back To Love" singer later
posted a second video, saying, "Y'all ain't send no pictures in. Ohhhh.
You feel dumb don't you? Exactly!"
His
argument is – if you are upset by my song, it’s not because I said something
offensive, it’s because you are ugly!
Ad
hominem circumstantial occurs when someone’s argument is rejected based on the circumstances of
the person’s life. Example - “Pharmaceutical companies, like Johnson &
Johnson, and AstraZeneca, stand to make billions next years, off of the
vaccine, the government should have had many more strings attached to the money
it gave these companies. I don’t trust any vaccine, they just want our money.”
The fact
the these companies stand to make billions, and the fact that they only jumped
on making the vaccine when governments and private sources started footing the
bill, because these companies only exist to make profit, and not for the public
good, doesn’t mean that their vaccines are bad. Simply because these companies
main goal is profit doesn’t mean that the vaccines will be mediocre. However,
an argument can be made that business will general seek to produce the
cheapest, possibly mediocre product as to keep cost margins low, but the same
can’t necessarily be said for things the government has invested in,
specifically for the public good. After touch screen and the internet research
was originally fund by the government.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55170756
Poisoning
the well: The
fallacy occurs when a person is attacked before she has a chance to present her
case. Example: Divorced couple on television, some show like Judge Judy or
something, one of the ex partners starts talking, “Before we start I want you
honor to know that my partner is a cheating back stabbing liar, and I swear
that the bodies are somewhere on the lake house property, Ok now we can start.”
Ok, so
obviously the other person is not going to get a fair hearing.
Tu
quoque: The fallacy
is distinguished by the specific attempt of one person to avoid the issue at
hand by claiming the other person is a hypocrite. Example A crackhead tells
“Don’t do crack!” you respond. “But, you do crack.”
Or when
ben Shapiro says that ‘because Bernie Sanders is a millionaire it is
hypocritical of him to criticize other millionaires.’ Some addicted to crack
has, by definition an addiction to crack, so the fact that they aren’t
following their advice is due to their addition, often people will have a
weakness that inhibits their ability to follow their own advice. And saying
that Bernie can’t criticize other millionaires is like saying homeowners,
police officers, or whoever can’t criticize people in their respective fields.
3 Emotional
Appeal Fallacies
These
fallacies are based on emotional appeal, relying on the arousal of a strong
emotional state or psychological reaction to get us to accept a conclusion.
Appeal
to the people: The
fallacy occurs when an argument manipulates a psychological need or desire so a
reader or listener will accept the conclusion.
Example:
Cow’s Milk
Commercial – “Are you a man? Do you do manly things with guy hands and man
face? If you are indeed and manbo-manbro man then why are you drinking soy?
Sure there is no scientific evidence that soy do harm to the male body, but
think about your kids. You wanna have kids don’t you? Then don’t drink soy
(even though it literally only has benefits for men). Drink cow’s milk. It
comes from a boob so that means you are more of a man when you drink it. (Be
advised that according to a study by the National Library of Medicine that the
intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows can men has been shown to
decrease testosterone secretion. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19496976/.)
Appeal
to pity: The fallacy
results from an exclusive reliance on a sense of pity or mercy for support of a
conclusion.
Example:
Guy in bar
– “Look bartender I just lost everything, my wife, my dog, my car, my home, my
pinky toe. Can’t I have one free drink?”
Bartender
responds – “Well usually you need money, because this is a business, but I will
let you have a free drink because I have some much pity for you.
Appeal
to fear or force: A
threat of harmful consequences (physical or otherwise) used to force acceptance
of a course of action that would otherwise be unacceptable.
Fascists
and authoritarians utilize the appeal to fear the most frequently.
Pastor-
“If you partake in the gay lifestyle you burn in the fiery pity. With all of
your favorite musician and writers for all eternity.
Fascist
politician- “If you don’t make sure I get elected not only will the blacks and
Mexican come in the suburbs they will take steal your homes and kill you all.
And they will make your children transsexual Muslims. So vote for me and we
stop the Jewish lizard aliens!”
4 Generalization
fallacies
Generalization
fallacies occur when there is a mistaken application of a generalization such
that the premise(s) supply only very weak support for the truth of the
conclusion. These include Rigid application of a generalization, Hasty
generalization, Composition, Division and Biased sample.
Rigid application of a generalization: When a generalization or rule is
inappropriately applied to the case at hand. The fallacy results from the
unwarranted assumption that a generalization or a rule is universal (meaning it
has no exceptions). Example: Confused guy in jail. Another guy, very hung over
askes the confused gentalmen “So, what are you in for?”
The confused guy responds “Huh, somebody stole my coke, like
all of it, so I called the cops, because they find are supposed to go after
thieves. Anyway, after I called the cops I went to the Post office to mail my
blacktar heiron to Seatle and that when they arrested me. Cop are supposed to
help you not arrest you.”
The hung over guy simple stares at the confused gentlemen
with a face of puzzlement.
If you can’t figure out what this confused drug dealer guy
did wrong, then I can’t help you.
Hasty generalization: An argument that relies on a small sample that is
unlikely to represent the population.
Introduction
Dr.
Steven LaTulippe said COVID -19 is nothing more than the common cold. He
advised his staff not to wear masks. He did advise people showing symptoms of
COVID-19 to wear masks, but he still claims that COVID-19 is essentially a
hoax. Dr. Steven LaTulippe is committing the appeal to unqualified authority.
The unqualified authority is himself. His naturalistic bias is troubling. Also
his claim that COVID-19 is just the flu
is a hasty generalization. He commits this fallacy by claiming that his
protocols for the flu should still work for COVID-19, because, as he incorrectly
states, COVID-19 is just like the flu.
Thesis
With his overt nationalistic
testimony LaTulippe’s commits the appeal
to an unqualified authority, his anti-science view and his claim that masks are tool of control
is dangerous. Finally his
assumption that his flu protocals will still work for COVID-19 is a Hasty
generalization.
Body
With his overt nationalistic
testimony LaTulippe’s commits the appeal
to an unqualified authority
The Appeal to an unqualified authority
is an argument that relies on the opinions of people who either have no
expertise, training, or knowledge relevant to the issue at hand, or whose
testimony is not trustworthy. While Dr. Steven LaTulippe has a medical degree
and a medical practice it is clear that his testimony is not trustworthy.
Dr. Steven LaTulippe’s claim that
"We have been utterly duped, and I want
you to know that this is insanity and the purpose was only to shut down the
American people. This is a threat to your freedom, a threat to our
Constitution.”
exposes a nationalistic bias.
His
anti-science view and his claim that masks are tool of control is dangerous
According to Joseph Harris, Boston University,
anti-science nationalism can be dangerous. Non-scientific views about HIV like
home remedies for the treatment of AIDS like garlic, beetroot, and olive oil as
promoted under South African President Thabo Mbeki and other government
officials led to the deaths of 330,000 people.
Dr. Steven LaTulippe’s request that “you, take off the mask of shame…It is a mask that is just designed to
control you and to shut you down." Is also false because a Duke University
study, among others has determined that masks slow the spread of the disease.
His
assumption that his flu protocols will still work for COVID-19 is a Hasty
generalization
Dr.
Steven LaTulippe’s also commits the
Hasty generalization fallacy. This occurs when an argument that relies
on a small sample that is unlikely to represent the population. He committed
this fallacy when he said "I
have a very rigid virus and flu-season protocol at my clinic, and it has worked
very well for me for years." As experts from the CDC to universities and
scientist around the globe have stated, THIS ISN’T THE FLU!
Conclusion
Dr.
Steven LaTulippe commits the appeal to an unqualified authority by claiming
that he COVID-19 is simply a flu based on his experience with the flu and not
COVID-19. He commits the Hasty
generalization fallacy by claiming that his protocals for the flu should still
work for COVID-19, because COVID-19 is just the flu. In my opinion Dr.
Steven LaTulippe is wrong and dangerous.
References
https://asaskat.com/2020/05/22/anti-science-nationalism-and-the-critical-role-of-sts/
https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-detail?articleid=27691&publicId=395
Composition: There are two forms of the fallacy: (1) The mistaken
transfer of an attribute of the individual parts of an object to the object as
a whole. (2) The mistaken transfer of an attribute of the individual members of
a class to the class itself.
If someone were robbed by a black person and then assumed
that all black people a criminals. Or if someone who has mainly seen white
people being scientist, or giving expert opinions on television assuming that
all white people must be intelligent.
Other examples
“6. Because each member of this baseball team is
the best in the league for their position, then the team itself must also be
the best in the league.
7. Because cars create less pollution than
buses, cars must be less of a pollution problem than buses.
8. With a laissez-faire capitalist economic
system, each member of society must act in a way that will maximize his or her
own economic interests. Thus, society as a whole will achieve the maximum
economic advantages.”
Division: There are two forms: (1) The mistaken transfer of an
attribute of an object as a whole to the individual parts of the object. (2)
The mistaken transfer of an attribute of a class to the individual members of
the class.
When white privilege is applied to all white men equally in a
way that leads one to believe that a uninsured factory worker in Arkansas has
the same, or even some, of the power and influence of more powerful white men,
say Elon Musk, this is the fallacy of division.
Or when it is assumed that all black people are poor because
black people have a large percentage of poor people in their population, (about
a fifth of the population) this is also the fallacy of division.
Biased sample: An argument that uses a nonrepresentative sample as support
for a statistical claim about an entire population.
According to the article "High
Impact Science and the Case of Arthur Jensen"
“Burt’s
papers “are often remarkably lacking in precise descriptions of the procedures
and methods that he employed. Items such as the children’s ages, sexes, name of
the test administered and how and when the tests were given are often missing
from the data supplied in the published version. When these findings began to
cast some doubt on Burt’s work, others began to investigate. Out of these
investigations came further charges, well-reported in the science press, that
Burt may even have “invented” the data and “made-up” the co-workers he said
collaborated with him on some of his studies.…
Shockley
also wrote several papers defending the Jensen article. In his 1971 article
“Models, mathematics and the moral obligation to diagnose the origin of Negro
IQ deficits” Shockley concluded that “nature has colorcoded groups of
individuals so that statistically reliable predictions of their adaptability to
intellectually rewarding and effective lives can easily be made, . . . If those
members of our black minority with the least percentage of Caucasian genes are
both the most prolific and the least intelligent, then a form of genetic
enslavement is the destiny of their next generation.””
It is
clear that Jensen and Shockley used nonrepresentatives sample as support for a
statistical claim about all black people.
Suppress evidence
fallacy:
"In
the discussion about inductive arguments, it is explained how a cogent
inductive argument had to have both good reasoning and true premises, but the
fact that all included premises have to be true also means that all true
premises have to be included. When true and relevant information is left out
for any reason, the fallacy called Suppressed Evidence is committed."
In
the Heather MacDonald quotes below does she commit the “suppress evidence?”
fallacy?
According to Heather MacDonald “In 2018 there
were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last
year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of
all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½
times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to
be killed by a police officer.”
Mac
Donald must know that while 1,002 people were killed by police in 2019, 48
police offers died over the same period, according to FBI data.
According
to Washington Post Contributor Philip Bump
“Even
if all 48 of those deaths were attributable to black suspects, it’s well below
the 250 deaths of blacks at the hands of police. The FBI data indicates that 15
of the 49 identified suspects involved in those deaths were black — a figure
comparable to the number of black people killed by police who were known to
have been unarmed.”
Police
are not more likely to be killed by black people, armed or not, it’s the
literal opposite.
Mac Donald definitely has access to the same data. We all
have access to FBI crime stats. So for someone to make such a claim is immoral.
5 False
Cause Fallacies or fallacies of presumption
False
Cause Fallacies or fallacies of presumption (a subclass of fallacies of
sufficiency) occur when an unwarranted causal connection is assumed to exist,
in an inductive argument, between two events when none actually exists, or when
the assumed causal connection is unlikely to exist. These include Post Hoc,
Slippery Slope, Begging the Question, Complex question, Appeal to ignorance and
Appeal to an unqualified authority.
Post hoc: The fallacy occurs from the mistaken assumption that just
because one event occurred before another event, the first event must have
caused the second event. Subtypes of this fallacy are Coincidence, resulting
from the accidental connection between two events, and the Common Cause
fallacy, which occurs when one event is believed to cause a second event, when
in fact both events are the result of a common cause.
See Causality and Mills Methods for an illustration of this
fallacy.
Slippery slope: An argument that attempts to connect a series of occurrences
such that the first link in a chain leads directly to a second link and so on,
until a final unwanted situation is said to be the inevitable result.
Example:
Releasing
non-violence offender will lead to a catastrophic increase in ex-cons in the
neighborhood.
More
ex-cons inevitably leads to more crime, because that won’t be able to get jobs.
The neighborhood will be overrun with jobless criminals and
fall apart at the seams.
Fallacies of unwarranted assumption assume the truth of some
unproved or questionable claim; when the assumptions and lack of support are
exposed, the weak points of the argument are exposed.
Begging the question: In one type, the fallacy occurs when a premise is
simply reworded in the conclusion. In a second type, called circular reasoning,
a set of statements seem to support each other with no clear beginning or end
point. In a third type, the argument assumes certain key information that may
be controversial or is not supported by facts.
If the government just gets out of the
way, everyone can be free to do the right thing themselves. After all, every
day people are smart enough to make the right decisions on their own naturally
and they should have the freedom to do so.
The fundamental argument being put forth here is that society
would function better with less government intervention and restriction. Within
that argument is the assumption that people will always do what is best, but
that assumption is also being used to support the argument. As a result, the
argument becomes an example of circular reasoning, begging the question. Why
can we expect people to make the right decisions?
Freedom of the press is one of the
most important hallmarks of a modern, open society because modern, open
societies value the ability of the press to report what's happening.
The important to note about fallacies like begging the
question is that the argument they're trying to make isn't necessarily wrong;
it's just poorly constructed or supported. In this case, the second half of the
sentence simply restates the first half in reverse order. It would be akin to
saying that the Civic is a car made by Honda because Honda makes a car called
the Civic.
Circulus in demonstrando
-- Circular argument
In this fallacy, the premise and conclusion are used to
support each other in a never ending circle of x because y, and y because x.
"Justice League was a horrible movie because all DCEU
movies are horrible. Of course DCEU movies are horrible, look at Justice
League."
Complex question: The fallacy occurs when a single question actually
contains multiple parts and an unestablished hidden assumption.
Example:
Investigator questioning someone.
"'Your
remember Terry. Where did you get the
knives you stabbed him with?'
"'I didn’t stab him!'
"'And his little dog too. That cute little
terrier. You must feel guilty?'
"The suspect placed both hands on his
checks. 'I didn't stab anybody.'”
The
most common example is of course “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
https://www.thoughtco.com/complex-question-fallacy-1689890#:~:text=A%20complex%20question%20is%20a%20fallacy%20in%20which%20the%20answer,answer%20to%20a%20prior%20question.&text=%22Have%20you%20stopped%20beating%20your,1914%20book%20of%20legal%20humor.
Appeal to ignorance: An argument built on a position of ignorance claims
either that (1) a statement must be true because it has not been proven to be
false or (2) a statement must be false because it has not been proven to be
true.
Example:
“You can’t prove that I can’t fly, so I must be able to fly”
“He hasn’t called me in a week. He must really want me.”
“Officer – I have never been accused of being too rough,
therefore I have never been rough!”
Appeal to an unqualified authority: An argument that relies on the
opinions of people who either have no expertise, training, or knowledge
relevant to the issue at hand, or whose testimony is not trustworthy.
Examples:
Some years back my car broke down, so I asked my niece, who
was five at the time, if she knew why.
My cousin who failed literally every biology class he has
been in. He could tell a eukaryote from a car tire, but I absolutely trust his
opinion that the vaccine was meant to kill black people, He also failed
political science, he has never been robbed ar gun point only because he is so
gullible that even the most vicious criminal just peaceably tricked him. He
neither street smart nor school smart, but I absolute trust his medical
opinion.
False dichotomy (or False Disjunction): The fallacy occurs when it is
assumed that only two choices are possible, when in fact others exist.
Example:
“You can only get iron through animal meat or spinach.
Fleshy, savory meat, or spinach. Pick one”
“Actually you can get iron through beans, lentils, tofu,
baked potatoes, cashews, Dark green leafy vegetables such as kale and collard
greens, fortified breakfast cereals and whole-grain and enriched breads.”
6 Fallacies of Diversion
Fallacies of diversion occur when the meanings of terms or
phrases are changed (intentionally or unintentionally) within the argument, or
when our attention is purposely (or accidentally) diverted from the issue at
hand. These include Equivocation, Straw man, Red herring, Misleading
precision and Missing the point.
Equivocation: The fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument relies
on an intentional or unintentional shift in the meaning of a term or phrase in
the premises.
Example:
In the bloody battle field outside the great white city of
Minas Tiraith. It is a red day and Eowyn just stopped her uncle, the King of
Rohan, from being slain. She is adorns in the armor of her people and she is
disguised as a male horse lord. The Witch king has fixed his gaze on the spy
warrior and although she masterfully evade the evil despot for a while it was
with the aid of the Halfling Merri that that gained the upper hand. Merri
stabbed the Witch king in the leg bringing the witch to knell before Eowyn.
This is when the Witch king says “No man can kill me!” to with Eowyn takes off
her helmet revealing her golden hair gleaming in the yellow sun and she says,
“I am not man!” She then stabs the witch king in the face.
Now if the witch king pointed out Eowyn’s equivocation by
saying, “No, no, you see by man, I simply meant mortal. I wasn’t referring to a
particular gender.” He might have been saved. However, it is likely that in
Eowyn’s talks with Merry she would have understood the power of the knife that
Merry used to stab the witch king. She may have replied, “Actually, the knife given to Merry by Tom Bombadil, has already broken the spell that knit the unseen sinews to your will, so anything could stab you in the face and
kill you!"
“Huh, good point,” replies “but you still committed the
fallacy!”
To which Eowyn would respond by simply stabbing him in the
face as she intended. I see why Peter Jackson cut this seen out.
In 2006, George Bush stated:
The United States does not torture.
This statement was only true because Bush used a special
definition of the word torture or rather
a précising definition 'torture.' His definition of torture left out
waterboarding and mock execution.
A drunk driver gets pulled over by a police officer. And says,
I only had a few beers.
The driver really did only have a few beers. But the driver also
had a bunch of shots and mixed drinks. The driver is committing the
equivocation fallacy in an attempt to convince the officer he only had a few
alcoholic beverages.
A billboard company might advertise their billboards by saying:
Looking for a sign? This is it!
The double meaning is found in the word 'sign'. While billboard
is a sign, the statement also plays on a sign from God. Therefore, the
billboard is a sign from a deity, so you should advertise here.
Straw man: The fallacy occurs when an argument is misrepresented in
order to create a new argument that can be easily refuted. The new argument is
so weak that it is “made of straw.” The arguer then falsely claims that his
opponent’s real argument has been defeated.
Example: A. Marxists want everybody to be treated equally,
paid the same, and treated the same. This is ridiculous. Because everybody has
different needs!
B.
Actually Marx never said that. Marx argued that a socialist society cannot come
into being through the fairytale good-will of individuals, regardless of the
economic, cultural and political conditions that surround them. While good-will
is necessary to give birth to a socialist society it is not sufficient. One cannot
ignore the material, social and economic conditions that allow any society to
come into being.
Marx
denotes to how distribution would take place in a communist society in his work
the Critique of the Gotha Programme.
“‘….from each according to their ability, to each according
to their need’. This implies that if X needs more than Y, X will get more than
Y; that if a can contribute more than b, a will contribute more. The two will
not earn equal wages or receive the same outcomes. In Marx’s work, the concept
of equality is generally criticized as an abstract bourgeois notion.”
Red herring: The fallacy occurs when someone completely ignores an
opponent’s position and changes the subject, diverting the discussion in a new
direction.
A.
Free-markets
and free speech aren’t mutually exclusive. In Cuba during that time citizens
had much more freedom of speech than Chileans under the Free-market Pinochet
regime. And still there were Chicago School economists in Pinochet’s autocracy
that defended the regime. One Chicago Boy said “I have no doubts that as of
1973 and for many years before an authoritarian government –absolutely
authoritarian-that could implement reform despite the interests of any group,
no matter how important it was, was needed.” The Chicago boys thought that the
massive campaign of Pinochet’s state repression of speech was necessary for the
growth of the free market. When Austrians say they don’t like government
intervention, they are not being honest, because they want the government to
intervene in our lives to protect the market.
The Chicago Boys believed that democracy was not always desirable
because a state was likely to bend to the pressures of special groups, like the
poor, Amerindians, Blacks, women, etc. They believe that the science of
economics should be value neutral, and indifferent to social and ethical
values, they had a dogmatic faith in the free market.
B.
Well
Bernie Sanders policies will just cost too much.
A.
I’m
talking about Chile under Pinochet, not Bernie Sander’s platform
Misleading precision: A claim that appears to be statistically significant
but is not.
Example:
“We know that the
Earth is 6,349.5 years old.”
Taking the
information that God is giving us through the Bible, we can only roughly
estimate the time from Adam to Christ using genealogies. It is Divine
revelation, but God doesn't get that specific. We cannot dogmatically claim to
know that the Earth is 6,000 years old. We know that God created the Heavens
and the Earth in six days and we know the number of generations between Adam
and Christ. That's about it. Even though a plain reading of Scripture seems to
indicate a young Earth; even though there is zero observed evidence and only
circular reasoning and speculations that support old Earth stories, we can't
even deny the possibility that God could have done something that Scripture
doesn't hint at and that has left no scientific evidence. It is possible. It
just is not worth the time to think about it. We really cannot estimate the age
of the Universe except from the standpoint of Earth since God has not told us
how He got distant starlight to the Earth. Using Einstein’s Theory of
Relativity, God could have caused billions of years to pass in distant space
while literally no time passed on Earth during the creation week, but we have
no revelation on that. To say that this happened would be pure speculation.
Some people speculate about a prior creation between the first and second verse
of Scripture; however, there are severe problems with this speculation. It is
fairly well falsified. Others speculate that the first few days of the Creation
Week were billions of years long. Beyond being very speculative, this story
doesn't work scientifically or logically. That being said, if God deems it
important for us to know the exact amount of time that passed since the
Creation (or any other event that has taken place), He is well able to provide
the information. In the mean time, there is no need to commit fallacies of
false precision.
Here we have an example of Misleading precision but the author commits the fallacy of begging
the question. As far as Misleading precision is concerned it is true
that we can’t reliably get that the age of the earth to the decimal, we know
enough about geology to know that the earth is much older that even a general
6000 years old. The author of the above statement begs the question because
they assume that the information is true because God said it was true and we
know it true because God would not have said it if it wasn’t true. The
reasoning is circular, because we don’t know how God created the world,
anything beyond that.
But when there are cases when
precision matters, a piece of some life-saving equipment being slight off, or a
paramedic coming a second later could be the different between life and death.
http://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_Fake_Precision__Over_Precision__False_Precision__Misplaced_Precision__Spurious_Accuracy.html#.YEuJoZ1KiUk
Missing the point: When premises that seem to lead logically to one
conclusion are used instead to support an unexpected conclusion.
“Sometimes I feel like I’m shrinking. I feel as though I have
small hands and tiny legs. I feel my eyes getting smaller as my skin tenses up.
I starting think that Lions can successfully breed with tigers. Image that.”
Lions mating with tigers have nothing to do with his
emotional state.
"A student begins by saying that she will argue that the
teachings of Malcolm X are undoubtedly still relevant.” If she then argues at
length that the teachings are of great help to many people, no matter how well
she argues, she will not have shown that the teachings are true.
Next
Comments
Post a Comment