Errors in Thinking & Argument

[Utility]

Peace

[Hermit]

Yes, good stuff, and very helpful. However, I'm not sure about this tip ...

The proof of an assertion must be a logical step in reasoning with a logical relationship. That the world has beautiful and complex things for us to see is not necessarily related to the existence of a god and is therefore a pointless proof.

The world was either created by an intelligence or it is the result of random chance. Beauty and complexity (e.g., working systems such as the human body) are more likely to exist as the result of design and construction by an intelligent source than to have randomly drifted into existance.

I call the intelligent Being/source which created this beauty and complexity "God". I think that's a valid argument.

[ThatWikkidPerson]

When I took first year philosophy at Ottawa U, and the prof taught us these rules of argument, I was blown away. I had always just thought this was "meeting argument" and the idea that maybe these things were not ok in an argument was quite an eye opener.

[remorsecode]

Having just finished my second year Practical Reasoning course, I will duly confirm these principles. If you want your arguments to fly in academia (at least, when academia cares)... be wary.

[Itry]

Interesting. In post modern thinking nothing is right or wrong, and everyones opinion has the same value.

Are there laws of logic?

[remorsecode]

There is in Philosophy (which doesn't jive much with postmodern thinking much, despite having pioneered it in some senses back in the early 20th Century).

[magog99]

My grandson, who is at University, asked me the other day, "How can you prove to me there is a God ?" I relplied, "I can't, but you can !" He looked puzzled, so I contimued, "If you were to put your trust in Christ, you would get all the proof you need. Through an Act of Faith I know and prove the presence of God in my life every day. I need no other proof. Taste and see that the Lord is good !". We then wandered on to "Cause and Effect". I told him that God is the first great cause. If I throw a pebble into a pond, you see the ripples ever extending outwards. What you are witnessing is the effect of my action... throwing the pebble into the pond. Being smart he asked me "But where did God come from ??" I replied by asking him "Do you understand INFINITY ? If I told you that Bill Blogs created God, you would then go on to ask, but who made Bill Bloggs? You see, even the scientist has to begin with an assumption, or if you like an act of faith. Whatever process or programme the scientists would have us believe created the universe, it begs the question where did the materials come from to start the process, or to create the BIG BANG. We can go on back and back, and never arrive at an answer. But as Christians we believe that God is Eternal. We can not understand the eternal, so we begin with this ACT of FAITH, and go on from there to prove the reality of God in our every day lives. Significantly Genesis sets out, not so much to tell us "How or When the World was made, but rather who made it ! and equally significant is the fact that the various stages of evolution quoted by Darwin are identical to the various stages of development that we have in the Genesis story.
"Who can by searching find out God ?" "He has hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes and sucklings "

Magog99

[jpurssey]

This misplaced post was originally the Opening Post of this topic.

Errors in Thinking & Argument

Quoted from John Parsons, Administrator at hebrew4christians.com Source: (Access requires registration) John indicates it was compiled from a number of sources. It is submitted here in the interest of education.

ERRORS IN THINKING:

#1: Hasty Generalization
A hasty generalization has occurred when a conclusion has been reached using too few examples; also, when examples have been used that are irrelevant or not representative.

Examples:
I. Christians are a bunch of weak-minded sheep who never think for themselves.
II. Christians can’t argue their point because they all rely on blatant lies and fallacies.
III. Atheists don’t believe in God because none of them take the time to honestly ask.

Tip: A lot of people accidentally slip into a hasty generalization by using words such as never, none, all, and every. Instead, replace these words with something less constricting such as some, many, or sometimes.


#2: Circular Reasoning
(AKA: Begging the Question)
Circular reasoning occurs when an argument assumes the premise has already been proved. This results in an argument that goes around in circles.

Examples:
I. The Bible is the Word of God and it says there is a god; therefore, God is real.
II. Man conceives all gods; therefore, gods do not exist outside of human fantasy.

Tip: Circular reasoning is a common Christian mistake. If you’re a Christian who is debating an atheist, take special care not to commit this fallacy. Be sure to check to see if new information has been presented to develop the argument. If you realize that no new information has been given to support your proposition, look for an outside proof or introduce some supporting reasoning for your argument. If you’re an atheist, be sure that you avoid statements like the second listed above. Just as it is common sense to the Christian that the Bible is the Word of God and is worthy substance for evidence, we may take for granted the idea that all gods are conceived by man. Unless you have some reasoning behind this you cannot go on to the next stop and conclude that gods do not exist.


#3: False Analogy
A false analogy is present any time similarities between objects or events (A) and (B) are assumed without proof, just because (A) and (B) are similar in some other way.

Examples:
I. (A) and (B) share similarities and (A) has (C); as a result, (B) has (C).
II. Communism and Atheism both lack the belief of gods and Communism is responsible for millions of deaths; therefore, atheism responsible for millions of deaths.
III. Christian Doctrine shares characteristics with Mithran Doctrine and Mithran Doctrine is false; consequently, Christian Doctrine is false.

Tip: Identify whether or not other aspects of the objects or events being compared are not similar or show that the objects or events are different in a way that will affect the aspect said to be shared.


#4: Non Sequitur
A non sequitur is a line of reasoning from which the premise cannot be logically linked to the conclusion; that is, the conclusion is not a logical result of the argument. (Note: the Latin phrase non sequitur means ‘it does not follow.’)

Examples:
I. There is a god because the world has many beautiful and complex things to behold.
II. Islam is a false religion because Muslim extremist carry out acts of terror.

Tip: The proof of an assertion must be a logical step in reasoning with a logical relationship. That the world has beautiful and complex things for us to see is not necessarily related to the existence of a god and is therefore a pointless proof. Likewise, that Muslim extremists carry out acts of terror is not logically connected to whether or not the religion of Islam is a viable religious institution and is an irrelevant proof.


#5: Ad Hominem
An ad hominem is a personal attack on the opposing person in a debate rather than his or her argument. (Note: The Latin phrase ad hominem means ‘against the man.’)

Examples:
I. You wouldn’t understand the truth because you’re an atheist. Of course you think the way you do.
II. You can’t think outside the box; thus you cannot realize the absurdity of your religion.

Tip: Ad hominems may be the most tempting fallacy to commit because we get frustrated with those who oppose our way of thinking and it is easier to attack the opposition than to take the time to discredit his or her claims. We attempt to discredit the person or make the person look silly, rather than actually debunking his or her claims. This may be the most common fallacy I see being shared by theists and atheists. Avoid arguments that reroute the attention from the argument to the person offering the opposing position.


#6: Either . . . Or
An either . . . or fallacy establishes a circumstance that does not allow for any other possibility than an ‘either . . . or’ situation provided by the argument even when other possibilities exist.

Examples:
I. You are either a rational atheist or an irrational theist.
II. (A) is wrong; therefore, (B) is right.

Tip: Always be sure that you have exhausted all possibilities before you declare that something is either/or. Many creationists are thrilled by the challenge presented by Dr. Hovind at http://www.drdino.com to evolutionists. His entire challenge, after you read through the mess of words, is based on an either . . . or fallacy: Either God created the universe and the earth in six literal days; or, no god exists and evolution occurred allowing all things that exist to exist without a god or anything else. He hides this fallacy well in his text by spreading it out, but it is there. Not only should you exhaust all possibilities to make sure an either/or situation is merited but also be sure to look for other possibilities when offered only two.


#7: False Dichotomy or Excluded Middle
This fallacy is similar to the either . . . or fallacy and may be hard to distinguish. False Dichotomy or Excluded Middle is when the extreme ends of a continuum with intermediate possibilities.

Examples:
I. When George W. Bush announced to other nations of the world that they could only be with us (United States) or against us.
II. There is only good and bad in the world - there can be no lukewarm.

Tip: Always be certain that no middle options have been excluded when presenting your argument; be sure you have not been deprived of middle options when having an argument presented to you.


#8: Argumentum Ad Populum
(AKA: Bandwagon, Appeal to Emotion, or Appeal to Popularity): This fallacy is when an argument is claimed to have merit because a large number of people hold it to be true.

Examples:
I. Of course there’s a god--everyone knows that!
II. Most people in the world hold Christianity to be a false religion; so, it cannot be considered a valid religion.
III. It’s OK to say there are no atheists in foxholes . . . everyone says it.

Tip: Don’t assume that just because most people believe what you do that it is true.


#9: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
(AKA: Doubtful Cause): This is a fallacy that occurs when a cause and effect relationship is erroneously assumed when an event happens and then another event happens. (Note: the Latin phrase Post hoc, ergo propter means ‘after this, because of this.’)

Examples:
I. School sponsored prayer was banned from schools; divorce rates and teen pregnancies went up; in other words, banning school sponsored prayer resulted in an increase in divorce rates and teen pregnancies.
II. Communism endorses atheism and Communism has resulted in the death of millions’governments that embrace atheism are wicked and will inevitably result in untold deaths of innocent people.
III. Statistically, the lower a person’s IQ and the less educated he or she is, the more likely that person is to be a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are unintelligent and are not adequately educated.

Tip: Never assume that because one event precedes another that the second was a result of the precursor. Be sure that there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship before declaring or assuming one to be, i.e., an effect that can be repeatedly found under identical sequential occurrences.


#10: Straw Man Argument
This fallacy occurs when an individual alters or presents the opposing position in a false light to make it easier to attack.

Examples:
I. Evolutionists say that life suddenly appeared from rocks by chance.
II. Christian Doctrine states that God came to earth as his own son to kill himself so that we may eat and drink his body, in order to save us from himself.

Tip: Don’t use a strawman argument if you’re trying to have a serious debate because it’s really a dishonest approach. Any creationist who has attempted to study evolution knows that example I is false just as any non-Christian who has read the Bible knows that example II is grossly simplified and is intended to make Christian Doctrine sound absurd in order to make it easier to attack. Always make sure that you are presenting your opponent’s argument in an honest manner and that your arguments are likewise being presented accurately. Deliberately using a strawman argument will only damage your credibility.


#11: Argument from Authority
Arguing from authority is when an individual uses the words of another to support his or her claim’perhaps pointing out that the person being cited has a Ph.D. to make him or her sound more credible.

Examples:
I. Dr. Seidle, a biologist, said of evolution: ‘Evolution is an impossible process at the macro level. That some kind of divine creativity was involved in our creation is indisputable.’
II. Albert Einstein said that he did not believe in a personal god and did not believe that humans continued to exist after death.

Tip: Degrees and intellectual achievements aside, we’re all humans and subject to personal beliefs and biases that will contaminate our better judgment. Citing an authority is useless unless your authority can demonstrate his or her claims and have the same results achieved by others using acceptable, unbiased methods. Einstein’s stating that he doesn’t believe in a life after death and that he did not believe in a personal god is nice to have in your quote-box, but it is useless information for trying to prove an argument regarding an afterlife because Einstein had no way of demonstrating his belief. When creationists quote one of the few scientists who are creationists, it does nothing for his or her case’it just shows that someone else agrees. Unless that biologist is able to demonstrate why evolution is unable to occur, and it has never been done, it is a useless quote with regard to the potency of the case.


#12: Inconsistency
Inconsistency occurs when supporting evidence(s) contradicts itself or other proofs supporting the case.

Examples:
I. All things have a cause; therefore, the universe must have a cause and that cause is God.
II. Atheists hate god.

Tip: Both statements above are common and both are inconsistent. Sentence I is inconsistent because it is argued that all things must have a cause and taken for granted the implication that God, too, would need a cause according to this reasoning. Sentence II is inconsistent because the definition of atheism disallows an atheist from hating a god he or she does not believe in.


#13: Observational Selection
(AKA: ‘counting the hits and ignoring the misses.’): Occurs when a prediction that has been made about the future comes true and this person or book has been declared a psychic or prophetic; all the while, ignoring several missed predictions.

Examples:
I. Sylvia Browne predicted that Montel Williams would have something significantly beneficial occur regarding his show. Indeed, this came to pass. Sylvia Browne is psychic.
II. James Randi has successfully given fortune readings to students in various colleges. He, too, is psychic.

Tip: It’s important not to ignore the misses when dealing with prophecies and psychic predictions. James Randi has given what has been hailed as accurate readings, yet he isn’t psychic, he is a skeptic who goes round exposing alleged psychics. Sylvia Browne claims to have helped several law agencies around the country solve crimes and make incredibly accurate predictions for her clients. When the law agencies are inquired, they’re almost unanimous that her contributions were useless, despite her claiming that she gave key information. Also, she has been blasted for her tactics of barraging her interviewee with hundreds of questions while only getting a few hits, claiming them to be proof of her psychic abilities. It’s important to check the background and validity of such claims.


#14: Argument from Adverse Consequences
This fallacy occurs when it is argued that something bad will or would have happened if such and such is so.

Examples:
I. If you don’t believe in God you will suffer everlasting punishment.
II. If I didn’t have my faith in my god I would have died a long time ago.

Tip: This fallacy is easy to recognize and shouldn’t be a problem. It generally isn’t used by atheists, but theists like to use it (threats of hell) and should be pointed out.


#15: Slippery Slope Argument
A slippery slope argument is an argument that carries the conclusion to the point of ridiculousness by a series of absurd consequences. Slippery slope misuses the conditional operator ‘if . . . then’.

Examples:
I. If we allow an atheist to be president then everyone will want to be an atheist.
II. If Christians are given special recognition by the US government, then non-Christians will seek to overthrow the government.
III. If we remove the Ten Commandments from public buildings then there will be nothing to give people moral guidance and society will crumble.

Tip: When confronted with an ‘if . . . then’ operator identify the outcome of the series of consequences and make sure it is a logical outcome of the proposition being argued against. If not, then show that the outcome need not be a consequence of the assertion being argued against.


#16: Meaningless Question
This fallacy has been made when a question that cannot be asked because it is incompatible with itself has been asked. The question invalidates itself because one part makes another portion of the question impossible and vice-versa. Meaningless questions are questions that are illogical.

Example:
I. Could a Contingent Being create a Necessary being’ (Can man, who is contingent, create God, who is Necessary’)
II. Can man’s finite mind comprehend the infinite nature of God’
III. Can God create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it’
Tip: The only way to avoid this is to keep an eye out for it and make sure you don’t ask something that cannot be answered.


#17: Tu Quoque
(AKA Hypocrite's Fallacy)
The fallacy of tu quoque is committed if we conclude that someone's argument not to perform some act must be faulty because the arguer himself or herself has performed it. Similarly, when we point out that the arguer doesn't practice what he preaches, we may be therefore suppose that there must be an error in the preaching, but we are reasoning fallaciously and creating a tu quoque. This is a kind of ad hominem fallacy.

Example:
You say I shouldn't become an alcoholic because it will hurt me and my family, yet you yourself are an alcoholic, so your argument can't be worth listening to.

Discovering that a speaker is a hypocrite is a reason to be suspicious of the speaker's reasoning, but it is not a sufficient reason to discount it.



#18: Improper Notion of Probabilities
This fallacy occurs when a low probability is used as a proof that something could not have happened.

Examples:

I. The chances of the universe coming together naturally with all the qualities it has to support life is one out of 10^62; it is impossible that the universe could have come to exist without a god.
II. There are thousands of religions in the world requiring faith and each claiming to be the truth over other false religions. Because it is so unlikely that faith would bring the Christian to the right religion, Christianity cannot be the right religion.

Tip: Statistics are powerful things and are great for illustrating a point. If you misuse a statistic to squash a possibility not excluded by that statistic you may sound convincing but you’re being dishonest and your case had not been made. Low probability, even when as low as one out of 10^62 does not mean impossible. Further, the accuracy of statistic such as the probability of the universe coming together with the qualities it has are highly questionable because we only have one universe and cannot compare our calculations with anything to see whether or not they are valid for use.


#19: Special Pleading
This fallacy is when an exemption is claimed from certain principles while those principles are applied to others. Philosophically, two people can be treated differently, i.e., held to different standard if and only if a relevant difference between the two people can be found (this is called the Principle of Relevant Differences). Special pleading violates this principle in that it identifies no relevant difference but merely gives special exemption from certain standards or principles required of others.

Examples:

I. Evidence that God exists isn’t needed to believe because a Christian has faith.
II. Atheists cannot possibly know the truth of the Bible because they lack the guidance of the Holy Spirit’of course they have delusions of contradictions in the Bible.
III. Fundamentalist Christians are irrational people because they hold irrational beliefs.
IV. God works in mysterious ways.

Tips: Never claim an exemption unless a relevant difference allowing that particular exemption can be identified. Be wary of special pleading of the type found in III. In this case, the non-Fundamentalist Christian is giving himself special exemption. We all hold irrational beliefs of some sort, yet the non-fundamentalist Christian exempts himself and other non-fundamentalist Christians from being irrational people.


#20: The Masked Man Fallacy
(AKA: Illicit Substitution of Identities): This fallacy has occurred when the assumption has been made that because something is known under one light or perspective that it must also be known under a different light or perspective.

Examples:

I. John knows that his skin sinks forming a small depression between his upper lip and nose; so, John knows where to find his philtrum.
II. Creationists agree that it is a fact that changes occur in species over time. Therefore, creationists agree that evolution occurs.

Tip: Keep in mind that while A=A, A may have another identity while it remains A. Most of us know what aspirin is but that doesn’t mean we know what acetylsalicylic acid is.


#21: Ad Ignorantian
(AKA: An Appeal to Ignorance): This fallacy is when the assumption has been made that because something has not been proven to be false, it must be true. This fallacy may also come in the form that since something has not been proven true, it must be false.

Examples:

I. You can’t prove that miracles don’t happen; so, they must happen.
II. God must exist because you’re unable to prove that He doesn’t.
III. God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove that He does.

Tip: Identify what is being asserted and argue that it may by true (or false) regardless of what we know about its being true or not.


#22: Willed ignorance
I've got my mind made up, so don't confuse me with the facts. This is usually a case of the Traditional Wisdom Fallacy.

Example:
Of course she's made a mistake. We've always had meat and potatoes for dinner, and our ancestors have always had meat and potatoes for dinner, and so nobody knows what they're talking about when they start saying meat and potatoes are bad for us.


#23: Wishful Thinking
A reasoner who suggests that a claim is true, or false, merely because he or she strongly hopes it is, is committing the fallacy of wishful thinking. Wishing something is true is not a relevant reason for claiming that it is actually true.

Example:
There's got to be an error here in the history book. It says Thomas Jefferson had slaves. He was our best president, and a good president would never do such a thing. That would be awful.

[magog99]

PHEW !

Will somebody tell me what the foregoing was all about ?

Magog9

[Elizabeth]

So well you may ask! I have no idea. This is a discussion forum, not a debate. Nobody has to abide by any rules other than those posted at the beginning of the forums. These rules are mostly to do with "Manners" and how to treat others who may disagree with you. Personal attacks will be removed. Other than that, maybe I do have errors in thinking and argument. So what! I place my vulnerability, errors and all, on the website and if I make an error in thinking and argument, well the members of the website will have to tolerate them, the same as I must tolerate others errors, etc.

Only by grace,

Elizabeth

[jpurssey]

PHEW !

Will somebody tell me what the foregoing was all about ?

Magog9

This is the recently lost original opening post of this thread.

The other posts in this thread (until yours) were a response to this OP and without it the thread makes no sense. Can you make sense of the current OP with the thread title.

It is there to show ways that there are errors in arguments and examples of each way are given.
When you post on a thread it is normally a response to the OP or to a view of a following post which should keep to the subject of the OP.

Before you start to post on a thread you should always read the OP to understand the topic of the thread.

NB. The long post does not contain any forum rules. It contains a list of generally accepted logical fallacies that are often propounded by people of any faith and none when making an argument. It is saying beware of others using these fallacies against you, and beware of using them yourself.

[Ian]

All or almost all of these errors have actually occurred in this web site. To a casual reader, most of them can seem OK, especially if they are being used to argue for some point that you approve of, but it is useful to have them described and listed so that you can recognise them when they do occur. If you don’t learn to recognise them, then you might be misled by an invalid argument, even if it is your own. That is generally not a good thing.

It looks to me as if the rules of logic are hard-wired into our brains. For example, if you try as hard as you can to believe two contradictory things at once, you probably can’t do it, because your brain refuses to accept them. These logic circuits in our brains are not there just for passing exams. They have important practical functions. They help us to understand things and choose courses of action wisely. They protect us from being deceived.

I am thankful for them, and I am all in favour of using them to the full.