Damage done by use of logical fallacies

[Butch5]

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)...

Edward, your example wouldn't be a fallacy. A fallacy is an error in reasoning in an argument.

 

[Butch5]

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

Thanks JLB best answer ..

Reba, Please don't leave the thread. This is a subject that is of such great importance. I really encourage all of the mods to really look into this. If Christians would study this and really understand logical fallacies the discussions on this forum would be much better and I believe to a great degree the name calling would be diminished. There are many Christians who believe false doctrines because they don't understand logical fallacies. The problem is that they don't see the fallacies and so the illogical arguments seem to make sense to them when in fact they are illogical. What's worse is that some of these Christians then go on to mislead other Christians with these same fallacies when the other Christians fail to see the fallacies. I am currently in a debate on another forum with some unbelievers and we're dealing with logical fallacies. As they mock Christian beliefs I've been pointing out their fallacies. This is a big problem with Christians defending the faith against atheists. Unbelievers use logical fallacies all over the place, but too many Christians don't recognize them and let them slide by without being pointed out. I've been defending Christianity without preaching anything. I've simply been pointing out the fallacies in their arguments. Their arguments fall apart before I even have to address the Bible.

 

[Nathan]

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."

I had someone ask me the very question on a thread one time. I guess I was not smart enough to know what it was meant for. So I just answered Yes.

I think the whole thing is people are going to view you the way they want anyways. If a person is trying to post things in order to get recognition or be seen by others, then any slight deviation is going to throw them into turmoil.

I answered yes to the question because he asked me to answer with a yes or no. I've never hit a man, much less a woman, in my life. But I was doing what he asked to the best of my ability. Guess I might need to wise up on this fallacy junk in order to at least see when someone is trying to trap me again. But you wont hear me calling people out on it.

 

[Papa Zoom]

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)...

That would be the appeal to authority fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Usuall the fallacy is one that occurs when someone makes an argument, and offers up an authority as " proof " they are right.

In your cop example, he was just being a jerk. Lol.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Here's another site of interest. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

 

[Politico]

Please tell me what you don't understand.

Suppose this happens as a conversation between Reba and Joan ( hypothetical example):

Reba: John's a good looking bloke. He's really handsome. His wife got a good one there.

Joan: My hubby is a handsome, hunk of a fella too. He's my prince charming.

What was Reba's point that she wanted to discuss? John, the good looking bloke.

How did Joan reply? She talked about her handsome hubby.

Joan changed the topic (although it sounded like the topic, it wasn't). Reba wanted Joan to discuss John, the good looking bloke.

When Joan discusses her hubby, the conversation has been shipwrecked by a red herring logical fallacy. What happens with a red herring is this:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion (Reba's topic) .
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).[Joan's topic]
   
3. Topic A [Reba's topic] is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim (The Nizkor Project).​

Does that help or is it still confusing? Please be honest and tell me what it is that you don't understand.

Oz

​

Although this is not necessarily related to the Red Herring fallacy, we must keep in mind that a certain amount of hyperbole/exaggeration is sometimes necessary in persuasive argumentation. The emotional component of the Human mind/spirit can be positively influenced in this manner. Such hyperbole is also often necessary to provoke thought and to demonstrate various truths. Effective communication necessarily requires a certain amount of "illogic."

Also, your example of a Red Herring might be a poor example as it assumes and argument was in progress and that Joan's intent was to pull the conversation off topic. I know you are presenting this scenario for its simplicity, but still. A true Red Herring attempts to divert the conversation with the intent of winning an overall arguing point related to a topic.

A certain amount of "illogic is necessary in effective communication and persuasive argumentation.

 

[Butch5]

I had someone ask me the very question on a thread one time. I guess I was not smart enough to know what it was meant for. So I just answered Yes.

I think the whole thing is people are going to view you the way they want anyways. If a person is trying to post things in order to get recognition or be seen by others, then any slight deviation is going to throw them into turmoil.

I answered yes to the question because he asked me to answer with a yes or no. I've never hit a man, much less a woman, in my life. But I was doing what he asked to the best of my ability. Guess I might need to wise up on this fallacy junk in order to at least see when someone is trying to trap me again. But you wont hear me calling people out on it.

The complex question is used to trap people. Some people may use it without realizing that, but it is a trapping device. I understand what you're saying here, but remember, Peter said to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in you. When someone uses logical fallacies to dupe Christians it makes them look like they don't know what they believe. Even worse is when Christians use fallacies to defend their faith. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. When some commits a fallacy their reasoning process is wrong. Since we're representing God and Christ we really should make sure that we aren't reasoning wrongly.

Regarding calling people out for fallacies, it's difficult because on one hand it's embarrassing to the person. However, on the hand it's not very good to let them continue on in error. Not to mention that on these forums if their fallacy isn't pointed out, others who don't see the fallacy, may believe the argument even though it's a fallacious.

 

[Jim Parker]

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.

That logical fallacy is called an "appeal to authority." (Surprise!!! )

iakov the fool

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Although this is not necessarily related to the Red Herring fallacy, we must keep in mind that a certain amount of hyperbole/exaggeration is sometimes necessary in persuasive argumentation. The emotional component of the Human mind/spirit can be positively influenced in this manner. Such hyperbole is also often necessary to provoke thought and to demonstrate various truths. Effective communication necessarily requires a certain amount of "illogic."

Also, your example of a Red Herring is a poor example as it assumes and argument was in progress and that Joan's intent was to pull the conversation off topic. I know you are presenting this scenario for its simplicity, but it's still a bad example in itself. A true Red Herring attempts to divert the conversation for the sake of winning an overall arguing point related to a topic.

A certain amount of "illogic is necessary in effective communication and persuasive argumentation.

I disagree with exaggeration being necessary. With the bible speaking often about being truthful, and an honest witness, as well as speaking harshly against being a false witness, I think we should trust in that and trust in God.

 

[Politico]

I disagree with exaggeration being necessary. With the bible speaking often about being truthful, and an honest witness, as well as speaking harshly against being a false witness, I think we should trust in that and trust in God.

You have missed the point, I believe. If I say that Obama did his best to destroy the moral condition of the US, I do not mean that it was his actual intent to destroy the moral condition of the country (although that may very well be the truth), and most people would understand that. I am intentionally using exaggeration/hyperbole to provoke thought, and to persuade. I am attempting to condense many statements into one compact, yet powerful statement. If the Right allows only the Left to use such exaggeration/hyperbole, then we have taken a step backward in persuasive argumentation. There is a huge difference between intentionally lying and constructive hyperbole used within an appropriate context and in an appropriate way. And of course it should not be over used.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

You have missed the point, I believe. If I say that Obama did his best to destroy the moral condition of the US, I do not mean that it was his actual intent to destroy the moral condition of the country (although that may very well be the truth), and most people would understand that. I am intentionally using exaggeration/hyperbole to provoke thought, and to persuade. I am attempting to condense many statements into one compact, yet powerful statement. If the Right allows only the Left to use such exaggeration/hyperbole, then we have taken a step backward in persuasive argumentation. There is a huge difference between intentionally lying and constructive hyperbole used within an appropriate context and in appropriate way. And of course it should not be over used.

I still hold it as something to avoid. If possible avoid all together. Jesus taught in not swearing a promise or an oath, but to let your yes be yes and your no be no. Anything more is from the evil one. In the same way I don't think we should try to strengthen our statements with hyperboles. Let those be kept in story telling, and jokes. But let the truth of what we say stay the strong and good measure.

 

[chessman]

A formal fallacy is an error in inductive reasoning. I.e. You are just plain (formally) wrong if you (or I) commit one.

Informal fallacies are 'errors' often found in deductive reasoning/arguments. Scare quote 'errors'! They are not technically errors of logic.
Informal fallacies do not break the laws of logic, they just don't support deductive premises. Rather, they 'seem' to support them in the mind of someone unfamiliar with them.

Everyone should understand that a premise or argument is not necessarily false by committing informal fallacies, but rather a premise has not been supported as being true by presenting an informal fallacy in support of it. The difference is significant.

 

[Jim Parker]

You have missed the point, I believe. If I say that Obama did his best to destroy the moral condition of the US, I do not mean that it was his actual intent to destroy the moral condition of the country (although that may very well be the truth), and most people would understand that. I am intentionally using exaggeration/hyperbole to provoke thought, and to persuade. I am attempting to condense many statements into one compact, yet powerful statement. If the Right allows only the Left to use such exaggeration/hyperbole, then we have taken a step backward in persuasive argumentation. There is a huge difference between intentionally lying and constructive hyperbole used within an appropriate context and in an appropriate way. And of course it should not be over used.

I would rather that conservatives consistently expose the hyperbole of the left. (Like: "Watch out! Don't step in that hyperbole!")

 

[Edward]

Edward, your example wouldn't be a fallacy. A fallacy is an error in reasoning in an argument.

One wouldn't think so, but it's sure used. One person says something, (which is reasonable) another one says, no that's wrong., WHy's it wrong? Because I said so and that settles it...disallowing reason to be considered because of a ghostly higher authority, lol.

Uh, lemmee see if I can give an example here...Homeowner shoots a burgler dead, a clear case of self defense, but they still arrest the homeowner for discharging a weapon within the city limits, and seize his weapon. (he had to discharge it to save his life).

The argument is, why wont you just leave me alone? You don't have to arrest me, because the shooting was justified and I had to discharge the weapon to save me & the families lives. This is totally within reason, but the cop responds, It's the Law... (as if he has no choice in the matter...but everybody knows that very much discretion is given to officers anyway) so the cop is using the "law" to override reason and neatly dodging responsibility at the same time.

Isn't there a name or term for that type of non-reasoning reasoning?

 

[civilwarbuff]

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.

Nothing unreal exists......Vulcan proverb.

Sorry, I couldn't help it.......

 

[Edward]

That would be the appeal to authority fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Usuall the fallacy is one that occurs when someone makes an argument, and offers up an authority as " proof " they are right.

In your cop example, he was just being a jerk. Lol.

Ahh! That's it! I should'a kept reading lol. An Appeal to Authority fallacy, got it. Thanks, Brother!

 

[Edward]

That logical fallacy is called an "appeal to authority." (Surprise!!! )

iakov the fool

Yeppers! It's aptly named, lol

 

[Jim Parker]

Isn't there a name or term for that type of non-reasoning reasoning?

There are several:
(1) Liberalism
(2) Progressivism
(3) Stupidity
(4) Democrat
there are more but that should covert it....

 

[OzSpen]

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

jim

Jim,

It's $7.93 at Amazon. However, it looks as though I may have to invest in an e-reader to read Kindle editions. I don't currently have an e-reader.

Oz

 

[Politico]

I would rather that conservatives consistently expose the hyperbole of the left. (Like: "Watch out! Don't step in that hyperbole!")

I remember William lane Craig using hyperbole to great effect. During his argument against the 'something from nothing' hypothesis (debating the scientist, Krauss), he said such a notion was "a joke." He then presented his formal argument. That one statement was great.; it was very effective. He openly ridiculed something deserving ridicule. Nothing wrong with using logically fallacious statements/hyperbole if they support the overall argument. They do not formally support premises/conlcusions, but they do support arguments, as long as they are used sparingly and appropriately.