What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Logical Fallacies - just for your information

Jim Parker said:
You have got to be kidding.
Really. I hope you are joking.
Click to expand...
Of course! I am surely being facetious.

My point relates to another thread that someone began about a wife of Jesus. Some one made a remark about the tos stating that things should Scripture references. Since this thread has as much as a Scripture base as the other one does, I wanted to make the point that that there are some topics for which there cannot be any Scripture.

As a result, I am making a suggestion by a facetious statement that threads such as these need to be in other places, or else perhaps some tos need to be altered. But that is above my pay grade here.
 
reba said:
guess one should be a lawyer or professor to post in a simple forum... does intent count? well i will be posting less and less instead of being fun this has become a lessen on who is smarter then who..i am not a smart one...
Click to expand...
This saddens me, Reba. It really does.

No one is trying to play "I am smarter than you" Nor is anyone attempting to put you down in any way. Everyone of us are ignorant of some things, and aware about others. That is just the way it is.

And if someone posts something about which you are not familiar there are basically two choices that you have:
1) try to learn more about that subject, and educate yourself
2) believe that someone is insulting you and/or putting you down and take it personally​

Which do you believe is the better response?

Of course, there are may be a third, or fourth response, but I simply chose the first two that came to mind. But what the OP is about is CLARITY OF THOUGHT. And that is not nothing new. I recall that this was part of the 12th grade English curriculum in the old Warriner's English series.

The reason for the OP is that it is posted as a help for all of us to post honestly and straightforward to each other. It is not to "beat the other poster over the head; instead it is hoped that by saying "That is a red herring" it will come across nicer than posting "That is irrelevant!". It is the same message, and the first is MUCH less hostile than the second one. I am sure you will agree on the tone of one being preferable to the tone of the other.

Then there is the issue of the tos, and I did start a conversation with WIP about it and you are welcome to join, I will not go into detail about it here, other than to say that this thread, and the thread I discussed with WIP have certain similarities.

There are other things we can discuss, but this is sufficient for now.
 
Jim Parker said:
Some people (not you) post strings of words, which the think are sentences, that convey absolutely nothing because the grammar is so abysmal as to render their post gibberish. I have read posts that I had no way of figuring out what they were trying to say.

It's not a sin to use correct grammar and logic. It enables people to be understood.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe posting in tongues is evidence of spirits? Or some other alcoholic beverage?
 
Jim Parker said:
Do I need a scripture reference to back up a statement of fact.
If I say 10 X 10 = 100, do I need to back that up with scripture?
If I say "science" is "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation" my source for that was the Miriam-Webster dictionary, not the Bible.
The list of logical fallacies describes common errors that everybody makes. It isn't about theology so looking for a scriptural back up for them is like looking for one to back up the arithmetic or the definition of "science."

Am I making any sense?????
Or just muddying the water?


jim
Click to expand...

Interesting. It does make sense.
What kind of fallacy is that, where one says x is true...and the other says, if it's not in scripture it can't be true. As if that's evidence that it couldn't possibly be true...because it's not in scripture, thereby allowing them to not even address the point.

It can be true and not be in scripture. Show me cellphone in scripture for instance, lol.

:woot2
 
Edward said:
What kind of fallacy is that, where one says x is true...and the other says, if it's not in scripture it can't be true. As if that's evidence that it couldn't possibly be true...because it's not in scripture, thereby allowing them to not even address the point.
Click to expand...
That is a red herring fallacy.

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.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

Since logical fallacies are a sub-topic of logic, it is a different subject from Bible and theology.
The Bible is not a useful resource for defining logical processes.

The purpose of the person who objects to logical fallacies because they are not in the Bible is very likely not PURPOSELY introducing the Bible under the guise of being relevant. (He's not trying to deceive anyone.) But, the result is the same. The one who says, "It's not in the Bible." may very well think that it needs to be in order to be true. He is mistaken.

The Bible is God's self-revelation to man of His desire to reunite all mankind to Him in love.
That has nothing to do with logic. (Or math or science or European Civilization or the history of the English language or .....or lotsa ors)

The fallacy is more apparent if we use mathematics as an example.

Ima Einstein says: E=mCC and gives her proof using mathematics.
Biblethumperman says: That's not in the Bible so it can't be true.
The Bible is not a useful resource for doing mathematics.
Biblethumperman's challenge is illogical.

iakov the fool :confused2
 
Last edited:
Jim Parker said:
Ima Einstein says: E=mCC and gives her proof using mathematics.
Biblethumperman says: That's not in the Bible so it can't be true.
The Bible is not a useful resource for doing mathematics.
Biblethumperman's challenge is illogical.
Click to expand...

OK, I get what you did. It looked kinda funny at first, but since there is no superscript available on this board you improvised. Perhaps it may be better to use parenthesis and get E=M(CC). If you remember your high school mathematics, the ditty goes "parenthesis first, My Dear Aunt Sally". But this is ALSO a red herring. :lol

I like the reply, except for this introduction of Einstein above.

The reason why I do not like it is because it unnecessarily introduces physics, and by implication, equates that with logical thought and discussion. I do get it about your wanting to use logical expressions to make for better discussions, and I applaud it. However it is not good to "scare off" those who for one reason or another are skittish about looking at things differently than they have been taught back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. :hysterical

Of course, I am being facetious!

But my point is that we must NEVER post anything in any manner on any forum to make another person feel like a :dunce. The other side of that coin is that none of us are responsible for the perception of the reader if we take care to be respectful and considerate. Since perception constitutes about 90% of reality, we must be aware of how and what we say.

For example, if anyone of us posts something about airplanes, and a second poster hates ducks, it is not the fault of the first poster if the second poster imagines those hated ducks in the first poster's post. But in the same manner if the first poster posts something about "duck soup" or mentions webbed feet or "quack" then the first poster may be guilty of antagonizing the second poster.

See my point?
 
Free said:
Argument from silence.
Click to expand...
Please be more specific.
What is being silent?

BTW that is a major fallacy that I see on other sites among the "alternative religions".
The only thing that silence on an issue proves is silence on THAT issue.
 
By Grace said:
What is being silent?
Click to expand...
Ex: The scripture does not explicitly say that Jesus never married. The fact that scripture doesn't say; "He never married." in so many words, is not evidence of any possibility that He MIGHT have married.
When the scriptures say nothing about a subject, the only conclusion one may draw from them is nothing.
 
I think as a believer it is perfectly logical to believe God in Christ has everything under control. The world will never see this form of logic however. It's not possible.
 
smaller said:
I think as a believer it is perfectly logical to believe God in Christ has everything under control. The world will never see this form of logic however. It's not possible.
Click to expand...

That's because your and my hearts have been changed by the living Christ through the Holy Spirit.

However, that does not prevent our using logical fallacies in discussions and these fallacies need correcting. It's possible for born-again Christians to engage in erroneous reasoning. New life in Christ does not prevent illogic in action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top