Know Your Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies happen all the time, and we don’t know it. When we’re in an argument, and we get panicky because our opponent just said something that we weren’t prepared for, we sometimes revert back to the schoolyard playground: “Oh yeah? Well you’re a doo-doo head!” Or sometimes we try to bide our time with irrelevant facts “Global warming doesn’t happen, think about all those starving children in Africa!” And other times (the conservative political machine does this one all the time) we try to muddle the issues so there’s no clear winner or loser (we called this “sore losing” back in grade school).
As easy as they are to make, logical fallacies naturally enter into ontological arguments. Mostly because the fallacies are used by the deist officials as valid arguments (”There must be an intelligent designer, who else would have created earth?”). Knowing and understanding your logical fallacies will make you a more effective argumentor and a better critical thinker. It will also help prevent embarassing debate faux pas! [Begging the question is always a social liability]
Note: I am not listing *all* the logical fallacies here. Only the ones I feel are most often used in arguments relative to this site’s purpose. There are many sources at the bottom to feed your brain if this piques your interest.
“Begging the Question”
Also called “circular logic.” When you create an argument premise whose validity is based on the conclusion being true, you have begged the question.
Example: “God exists because the Bible says so.”
The unspoken implication here is that the Bible’s authority comes from God. If God verifies the truth of the Bible, then the Bible must be true, and if the Bible is true, then God must exist, and if God exists then He can verify the truth of the Bible, which means the Bible must be true… ad infinitum.
“Appeal to Ignorance”
Also known as the “burden of proof.” If you assert that since your claim is valid because the opposition cannot disprove your claim, then you are appealing to ignorance. These commonly go hand-in-hand with Post Hoc fallacies or False Dichotomies.
Example: God exists because you can’t prove he doesn’t.
The problem with this argument is that you’ve offered no proof to support your claim. While it is indeed true that you can’t prove a negative (i.e. “Prove to me that you don’t want me to give you $20 right now”), the burden of proof still lies with the asserter. I have read some deist arguments where they have said that the ontological burden of proof lies with the Atheist; that God exists and we are asserting he doesn’t. This obviously begs the question “What proof do you have that God exists?”
“False Dichotomies”
Also known as “False Dilemmas.” These are often employed against non-logical or weaker minded individuals. It’s kind of like hypnotic suggestion: it only works if I take your statements as truth. A false dichotomy happens when you tell your opposition that they must choose between two options, or when you assert that there are only two possibilities, A and B, and since B is false A must be true.
Example: “Either God created man or man evolved from apes. Since you can’t prove man evolved from apes [see “appeal to ignorance,” above], then God created man”
The problem with this argument is that it completely ignores all other possibilities. What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about the Navajo creation stories? What about Siva? Not that I’m endorsing any of those others as more or less valid, but there are more than two choices. This fallacy is very similar to the “Straw Man” argument, below, although it’s slightly trickier because there are instances where this statement pattern is actually fair: “Either you have are alive or you are not.” If there really are only two choices, then it’s not a false dichotomy. Critical thinking is key, here.
“The Straw Man”
Straw man arguments are really sneaky ones. Often they are snuck into statements that are spoken quickly and presented as premises for another statement. A straw man argument is when you intentionally over-simplify or distort what the opposition is stating to easily tear down the argument; By proxy, defeating their position.
Example: “If everything came from a tiny spinning dot that blew up then everything would spin in the same direction … since some planets and moons in our solar system exhibit retrograde motion/rotation … this disproves the Big Bang … so evolution is impossible.” (this is an actual quote by Kent Hovind - a man whose arguments are so wrought with error and fallacy, even Answers in Genesis is distancing themselves from him.)
The obvious problem with this argument is that the Big Bang never said that it was the product of a “tiny spinning dot.” Additionally, products of an explosive force don’t conserve the kinetic properties of the source. Watch a water balloon explode in super slow motion.
“Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc”
Also known simply as “Post Hoc,” this phrase literally means “after it, therefore because of it” in Latin. A post hoc fallacy is the fuel for many a superstition.
Example: “Today, I prayed to get a good grade on my final exam. I just found out I got an ‘A’, so praying must have worked!”
When you really examine situations like this, they don’t make a whole lot of sense and almost seem like non-sequiturs. Praying is frequently the victim of post hoc arguments, and often when you attempt to argue that the praying was not the cause of the windfall, you’ll be countered with appeals for ignorance (see above).
“Appeal to Popularity”
The “everyone else is doing it” argument. This fallacy comes into play when you cite the number of people that agree with you as evidence of your validity.
Example: “Over 85% of people worldwide believe that God exists, therefore he probably exists.”
This is similar to the “might makes right” doctrine that America has adopted in recent years. If I tell you that 1 + 1 equals 3, and you disagree, am I any more correct if I threaten to maim you? This fallacy is similarly used with the “Appeal to Antiquity” which would be “Well, people have always believed in God, so it must be true, right?”
I may add some more to this list at a later date. Check out the links below though to read up on some more of them!
Sources
Check out these pages for more detailed information about logical fallacies:
1 Comment so far
Leave a reply
Apparetly poor comma usage happens all the time as well.