Damage done by use of logical fallacies

[JLB]

Logical Fallacy Example:

Under the guise of getting Jesus to speak against the law of Moses, to turn the people against Him, and stir up discontent against Him, to label Him as a false prophet, [death penalty] the Pharisee's devise a plan, and use a logical fallacy... "this man hates the law of Moses"


Pharisee's: This woman was caught in the act of adultery, Moses law says she is to be stoned to death, what do you say, Jesus?

Jesus: Let the first one of you, who is without sin, cast the first stone.



JLB

 

[Papa Zoom]

Well i will go away from here .. must be too high brow for my simple mind ..

Thanks JLB best answer ..

Reba, we all struggle with this to some degree. Here a link that I like. http://www.fallacydetective.com

Fun books.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Jesus never committed a logical fallacy. The only one on earth who never did.

 

[Papa Zoom]

https://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Dete...488662&sr=8-1&keywords=fallacy+detective+book

A seriously good book which I own so all I've said applies to me as well. It's ten bucks on kindle and you can get a Kindle reader on your PC or smart phone.

 

[Papa Zoom]

That said, their nothing more annoying and few things more guaranteed to stop discussions than throwing around claims of fallacies. Just advance the discussion. Be gracious. Don't be snarky. Stop the parting shots. Snide remarks are worse. And you all know I'm right. Cuz I'm the Papa. We're called to love and be gracious to one another. We don't do that enough around here.

It's a discussion, not a competition.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Well i will go away from here .. must be too high brow for my simple mind ..

Thanks JLB best answer ..

Before you go Reba, there's one other point I'd like to offer. You and Oz, in my opinion, are after the same thing. As a mod who has to try to bring the peace, reign in some people or some conversations either that are rude or too off topic, even to just close threads completely. Your role is often in line with the the rules of logic that the fallacies jargon try to point out, restrict or remove. That's of course my opinion and my observation, if I'm wrong I hope Oz or you can let me know.

I don't remember if Oz said what the danger of using logical fallacies are, but here are a few that might help. They muddle communication making it harder to correct eachother or to make a point. They also can get in the way of good rationelle, or at worst (not by anyone I see in these forums) be manipulative and crooked. Often I see an easy one or two reached out for when debates get too hot or people get defensive. They start going insulting and making it personal, or they weaken a stance to make it look foolish and easier to prove that the other is wrong. I'm sure you've seen both of these behaviors before shutting a thread down.

Last thought. The way I'm reading this, I don't think Oz means anything in this topic as a condencending way, or in any Way to talk down to a person. I think he just sees these fallacies as getting in the way.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

A significant percentage of the directories on this forum allow for debate so your point is moot.

They allow for it, but only apologetics section and one on one debates section really invite debates. The Lounge is a place that allows debate like conversations (your cup of tea), and it allows for bible supported conversations (my cup of tea) but that section isn't ruled by either of those factors like the apologetics and the bible study threads are bound to one or the other more.

I have a suggestion though. Instead of trying to reshape cf.net to the rules of debate and logical fallacies, look at the TOS. There's I'm sure many rules there that are in line with some of the rules for logical fallacies. It's just a thought. Sorry if I ruined the lesson you were ready to teach concerning what fallacies are. The topic might still be worth explaining, but try to change the terminology. The lesson you started with seemed fit for children, (which in some ways are nice because it avoided calling a fallacy by a logic professor's jargon) but this is a conversation among adults. A suggestion would be to instead of speaking at the level of a child, they are intelligent as you are and go from there. Just a thought.

 

[JLB]

Jesus never committed a logical fallacy. The only one on earth who never did.

The Pharisee's did, not Jesus.

 

[Jim Parker]

Having read this thread i see the whole of this as thought control

Aaaaarrrrgghhhh!

It is not thought "control."
It is thought "discipline."
It is the discipline whereby a person presents his thoughts in an ordered and logical manner so that he makes sense.
It is the discipline that makes discussion and debate productive rather than being two or more people rattling on at each other about unrelated topics.

The resistance I see in this forum to receiving as valid standard methods of communication is dismaying.

Pointing out to someone that he has made an illogical statement should cause no more offense than telling someone that his shoe is untied or his fly is open. It is to his benefit to be aware of the error so that it can be corrected and not repeated.

The ability to avoid logical fallacies, IMO, should be considered as being of great value to any Christian who desires to explain the Gospel to people who are interested in being informed. An understanding of logical fallacies enables the evangelist/teacher to identify the hearer's illogical conclusions and lead them to a better understanding.

So, no, it is not "thought control" any more than paying attention to where you are going is "travel control."



iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

As for discourse here on CFnet, it's not a red herring fallacy when someone presents the other side of the argument or introduces an additional factor in the discussion. I rarely see red herrings here on CFnet as defined by both if our sources. What I see are accusations of them when someone's view is in disagreement.

Suggestion: Look again.

The National Weather Service provides sunrise and sunset information for wherever anyone lives in the USA.

So if I read that "sunrise" is at 5:47 Am and sunset is at 8:22 PM and then conclude that the NWS has just confirmed my suspicion that the sun really does orbit the earth rather than the other way around, my conclusion is based on a logical fallacy (a strawman because the NWS doesn't profess that to be the case) AND anyone who disagrees with me would be 100% correct.

iakov the fool

 

[Nathan]

Jesus never committed a logical fallacy. The only one on earth who never did.

Not only did He not need to, He also never said anyone else was - calling them out on using one. Interesting.

Logic fallacies are fallacies unto themselves - depending on a persons point of view.

In my job I am tasked with creating and maintaining logic programs that control various things. I came into the job after someone had made some of the logic already.

One thing I realized is his logic was not the same as mine - but they both achieved the same outcome.

Logic is used to get from one point to another. As long as it starts in the same spot, and has the same ending, then all the middle stuff is - well - just stuff.

We are all different and think differently. Instead of calling out someone's logical difference as a fallacy(is it really so if God created them different?), why not just approach the conversation from a different angle?

 

[OzSpen]

https://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Dete...488662&sr=8-1&keywords=fallacy+detective+book

A seriously good book which I own so all I've said applies to me as well. It's ten bucks on kindle and you can get a Kindle reader on your PC or smart phone.

Papa,

What I've read of this book is that it is a doozie in simple explanations (with cartoons) of logical fallacies. I plan to get it but a paperback copy costs me A$41.00 to land in Australia. I still think it will be worth getting it. Sounds like you find it beneficial.

Here's a 'Short List of Fallacies' taken from The Fallacy Detective.

Oz

 

[Papa Zoom]

Papa,

What I've read of this book is that it is a doozie in simple explanations (with cartoons) of logical fallacies. I plan to get it but a paperback copy costs me A$41.00 to land in Australia. I still think it will be worth getting it. Sounds like you find it beneficial.

Here's a 'Short List of Fallacies' taken from The Fallacy Detective.

Oz

I'm a huge fan of the "dummies" books. They say things simply. I read music, understand theory, and have played guitar for over 45 years. Still, my favorite book is "Guitar For Dummies." It has helped me simplify my teaching approach into understandable chunks. The Fallacy Detective is a similar kind of book. It simplifies concepts and that all people really need for informal discussions. I'll post other books I find helpful.

 

[Jim Parker]

Papa,

What I've read of this book is that it is a doozie in simple explanations (with cartoons) of logical fallacies. I plan to get it but a paperback copy costs me A$41.00 to land in Australia. I still think it will be worth getting it. Sounds like you find it beneficial.

Here's a 'Short List of Fallacies' taken from The Fallacy Detective.

Oz

What is the Kindle price? It's $10 here.

jim

 

[Jim Parker]

In my job I am tasked with creating and maintaining logic programs that control various things. I came into the job after someone had made some of the logic already.
One thing I realized is his logic was not the same as mine - but they both achieved the same outcome.
Logic is used to get from one point to another. As long as it starts in the same spot, and has the same ending, then all the middle stuff is - well - just stuff.

And you're talking about two similar but different things there.
Programming logic can have multiple paths to the same end.
When you make an error it is obvious; the thingamajig doesn't work.
The identification of logical fallacies enables one to avoid coming to false conclusions but, unlike the thingamajig that doesn't work, the error involved in a logical fallacy regularly goes unnoticed.
People employ them all the time thinking they are being perfectly logical.
Politicians use them professionally to baffle us with BS.
Talk to a liberal. You'll see.

iakov the fool

 

[chessman]

He also never said anyone else was - calling them out on using one.

The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'[4]): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'[2]

John 8:44 (NASB) You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. ​

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.

Mark 9:40 For he who is not against us is for us.
​

One thing I realized is his logic was not the same as mine - but they both achieved the same outcome.

The reason your design's outcome was the same as his, is precisely because the Law's of logic are the same for all. That's why they are called laws. Originally called the laws of thought.

 

[Edward]

What kind of fallicy is it called when one person says something, from an authoritative position, making the clear implication that because of the authority, that they are right? (when in fact they may not be right.

Like a cop for example. Telling someone to shut up or get locked up, say, in response to trying to give a witness account (that the cop don't want to hear)...

 

[Nathan]

The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'[4]): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'[2]

John 8:44 (NASB) You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. ​

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.

Mark 9:40 For he who is not against us is for us.
​

The reason your design's outcome was the same as his, is precisely because the Law's of logic are the same for all. That's why they are called laws. Originally called the laws of thought.

Your a better 'thinker' than me. 2

I tried to read this post a few times, and the link, but man does it just go straight over my head.

 

[Butch5]

What is it called when false assumptions are made.

IE: "John, when did you stop beating your wife?"

This question assumes that John used to beat his wife and also assumes that he has now stopped.

John, that's the fallacy of the complex question. It should be broken down into two questions. "John did you beat you wife?" and "If so, when did you stop."

 

[Butch5]

you are telling me what i think is a falsehood?

It is not a fallacy it is what i think ..

In another thread, I responded to reba, ‘Don't you understand the damage done by those who commit logical fallacies on CFnet?’ (#115)

She replied: ‘No, please explain them to me. In a proper thread thanks

‘ (#116)

You can see some of the damage done to logical conversations by interactions in #s 103-115 in that thread.

I suggest to people on CFnet that they get to know the nature of logical fallacies, correct terms used for them, and the damage they do to reasonable/rational discussions. There is an excellent site dealing with some of the main logical fallacies, The Nizkor Project.

What is a logical fallacy?
As the Nizkor Project states, ‘A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support’.

To put it another way, logical fallacies happen when assertions are made and they cannot be substantiated. What seems to zoom past many people is that the people who use them are enthusiastic, and deliver them with conviction, and best of all they sound like the points made are proven facts and reasonable.

An Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy uses this type of erroneous reasoning:

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim….

Example:

"Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!" (The Nizkor Project)​

Logical fallacies I sometimes encounter on this forum include:

• The red herring fallacy;
• The straw man fallacy;
• Ad hominem;
• Begging the question (circular reasoning);
• Appeal to Belief.

Damage done
When we use logical fallacies, it means that we engage in erroneous/ fallacious reasoning. Therefore, conducting a reasonable conversation is impossible as the issues being discussed have been side-lined and another agenda is being pursued.

So, a good way to hijack a discussion is with a logical fallacy. I encourage all people to be alert to the kinds of logical fallacies used in discussions – wherever – and to point them out here on CFnet to the person who used it. Then get back to the proper discussion.

For the religious instruction (RI) curriculum in the public schools here in Qld, I’m writing 2 lessons on logical fallacies that I’ve titled, ‘Tuning your bunkum detector’. You might call it, ‘Tuning your baloney detector’. The sub title for me is, ‘Verbal garbage for the wheelies of life – what to chuck out’. This is a grab from part of that lesson I wrote last week It’s for early teens:

In this RI class, in any class in school, when you watch your favourite TV show or download something on your Ipad or laptop, how do you choose between

• bunkum and truth,
• between baloney and facts,
• between nonsense and wise things?

We’ll be looking at ways to do that in this lesson and the next.

Please remember, I want you to tune your bunkum detector so you keep me on my toes in this RI class and any other class in school. Here goes!

I may deliberately give you bunkum or garbage for the wheelies of life in this lesson on Christianity. Garbage for the wheelies of life have been used by Christians as well. I want you to listen carefully so you can tell me what kind of bunkum it is? We’ll be giving labels to the bunkum.

What will be the benefits to you if you know what is bunkum and should be tossed out as garbage or what is true and should be kept?​

In this lesson I deal with 4 logical fallacies. Here are the titles for the kids (what are their official titles?):

(a) Popularity does not win the contest

(b) Choose some and leave out heaps

(c) They are experts – they orta know

(d) Name calling​

For the cause of Christian logic,

Oz

Thanks for this thread OZ. This is a subject that is in great need of address. These forums are rife with fallacies and I agree it does tremendous damage to the Christian faith. There are quite a few Christian doctrines that are based in logical fallacies.