Common Logical Fallacies                                                                          By Jack Kettler

 

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid or unsound. It is a flaw in the structure of an argument that leads to a mistaken conclusion, often by distorting or misapplying the rules of logic. Logical fallacies can occur intentionally, to mislead or manipulate, or unintentionally due to oversight or lack of understanding of proper reasoning techniques. Fallacies can appear in various forms, including:

 

·         Formal Fallacies: Errors in the structure of an argument, where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, even if the premises are true.

 

·         Informal Fallacies: Errors in the content of the argument, where the conclusion might be reached through misleading or irrelevant evidence, emotional appeal, or flawed assumptions about cause and effect or correlation.

 

Logical fallacies can undermine the credibility of arguments in debates, discussions, and presentations by diverting attention from the actual issues, appealing to emotions rather than reason, or presenting misleading or false premises. Recognizing logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking, effective communication, and the pursuit of truth in argumentation.

 

The Law of Non-Contradiction is one of the three classical laws of thought, which forms the foundational principle of logical reasoning. It can be stated as follows:

 

Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same context. For example, it is impossible for the statement "It is raining" to be true and false in the exact same moment in the exact same place.

 

Key Points:

 

1.      Mutual Exclusivity: The law asserts that contradictory statements cannot both be true. This does not preclude the possibility of change over time or in different contexts; thus, "It is raining" might be true at one moment and false at another or in another location.

 

2.      Foundation of Rational Discourse: This law underpins rational argumentation because, without it, no meaningful discussion or conclusion can be reached. If contradictions were allowable, any statement could be considered both true and false, leading to logical chaos.

 

3.      Application in Logic: In formal logic, this law helps validate or invalidate arguments. If an argument leads to a contradiction, it's typically considered unsound because it violates this fundamental law.

 

4.      Philosophical Debate: While universally accepted in classical logic and much of philosophy, some modern philosophies, like specific interpretations of dialectical logic or some forms of paraconsistent logic, challenge or modify the strict application of the law, allowing for some contradictions under specific conditions or interpretations.

 

5.      Practical Implications: In everyday reasoning, the law of non-contradiction helps in discerning truth from falsehood by ensuring consistency in our statements and beliefs.

 

This law, alongside the Law of Identity (A is A) and the Law of the Excluded Middle (A or not A must be true), forms the bedrock upon which much of logical thought, argumentation, and scientific inquiry is built.

 

A non-sequitur:

 

A non-sequitur is a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises or the evidence provided. The term is from Latin, meaning "it does not follow." In an argument, a non-sequitur occurs when there is a disconnect between the premise(s) and the conclusion, making the argument invalid because the conclusion cannot be deduced from the given information.

 

Example of a Non-Sequitur:

 

·         Premise: "All birds can fly."

·         Conclusion: "Therefore, all animals can fly."

 

In this example, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise because "all birds can fly" (which is itself not entirely true, considering flightless birds like penguins) does not imply that all animals share this capability.

 

Characteristics:

 

·         Lack of Logical Connection: The conclusion seems to come from nowhere, unrelated to the premises or evidence.

 

·         Misleading or Irrelevant: Often, the conclusion might be true but does not follow from the argument presented.

 

·         Common in Conversation: Non-sequiturs can occur in everyday speech, often unintentionally, due to confusion, distraction, or a misunderstanding of the topic at hand.

 

Types of Non-Sequitur:

 

·         Formal Non-Sequitur: In formal logic, this occurs when the conclusion does not follow from the premises due to a structural flaw in the argument.

 

·         Informal Non-Sequitur: More common in everyday discourse, where the argument might seem to make sense superficially but lacks a logical connection upon closer examination.

 

Refutation:

 

To refute a non-sequitur, one should:

 

Point out the lack of logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Clarify or demand premises that are relevant and logically lead to the conclusion if one is to be made.

 

Recognizing non-sequiturs is crucial for effective communication and critical thinking. It helps identify flawed reasoning and construct or evaluate arguments more accurately.

 

Here are ten of the most common logical fallacies, defined in academic terms:

 

1.      Ad Hominem:

 

·         Definition: An argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Instead of addressing the argument, one attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person presenting the argument.

 

2.      Straw Man:

 

·         Definition: Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or refute. This involves simplifying, exaggerating, or distorting the original argument to argue against a weaker version of it.

 

3.      Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam):

 

·         Definition: Assuming that a claim is valid because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. It argues that the absence of evidence does not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of truth.

 

4.      False Dilemma (False Dichotomy):

 

·         Definition: Presenting two alternatives as the only possible options when, in reality, there might be one or more other possibilities. This fallacy restricts the range of choices artificially.

 

5.      Slippery Slope:

 

·         Definition: Suggesting that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. It assumes that one action will lead to a chain of events without sufficient evidence for this chain.

 

6.      Hasty Generalization:

 

·         Definition: Generalizing based on insufficient or biased evidence. This fallacy occurs when one makes a broad conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample.

 

7.      Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam):

 

·         Definition: Using the opinion of an authority figure as evidence for an argument when the authority is not an expert in the relevant field or when the opinion does not constitute proof.

 

8.      Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause):

 

·         Definition: Assuming that because one thing follows another, the first must have caused the second. This is a fallacy of causation where correlation is mistaken for causation without sufficient evidence.

 

9.      Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question):

 

·         Definition: An argument where the conclusion is assumed in the premise; essentially, restating the proposition in different terms without providing any new evidence or reasoning.

 

10.  Red Herring:

 

·         Definition: Introducing irrelevant material to the argument, thereby diverting attention from the real issue at hand. This fallacy distracts from the argument by focusing on something tangential or unrelated.

 

These fallacies are common in both formal and informal discussions and can undermine the validity of arguments if not recognized and addressed. Logical reasoning requires awareness of these pitfalls to construct and evaluate arguments more critically.

 

Examples and refutations:

 

Here are examples and refutations for each of the ten logical fallacies listed:

 

1.      Ad Hominem:

 

·         Example: "You can't trust his argument about climate change because he’s a known oil lobbyist."

·         Refutation: The validity of an argument should be based on the evidence and reasoning presented, not the character of the person making it. One should address the scientific data and arguments about climate change directly.

 

2.      Straw Man:

 

·         Example: "People who support gun control want to take away all guns from citizens."

·         Refutation: This misrepresents the stance of many gun control advocates, who might support regulations rather than a total ban. The true position should be engaged with accurately.

 

3.      Appeal to Ignorance:

 

·         Example: "Since no one has proven that extraterrestrial life doesn't exist, it must exist."

·         Refutation: The absence of disproof does not constitute proof. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not with disproving it.

 

4.      False Dilemma:

 

·         Example: "You're either with us or against us in this war."

·         Refutation: Multiple stances or ways to support or oppose elements of the conflict can exist without fully aligning with one side or the other.

 

5.      Slippery Slope:

 

·         Example: "If we legalize marijuana, next thing you know, all drugs will be legal."

·         Refutation: Legalizing one substance does not logically necessitate the legalization of all others. Each drug should be evaluated on its own merits and risks.

 

6.      Hasty Generalization:

 

·         Example: "I met two rude people from that city, so everyone from there must be rude."

·         Refutation: This conclusion is based on an unrepresentative sample. A more comprehensive study or experience would be necessary to make such a generalization.

 

7.      Appeal to Authority:

 

·         Example: "Dr. Smith, a famous biologist, says this diet is good for everyone, so it must be."

·         Refutation: Even experts can be wrong or biased, and their authority in one field doesn't extend to all areas. Individual dietary needs vary and should be assessed scientifically, not just on expert opinion.

 

8.      Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc:

 

·         Example: "I wore my lucky socks and won the game, so they must have brought me luck."

·         Refutation: Correlation does not imply causation. The win could be due to numerous other factors, such as skill, strategy, or even chance.

 

9.      Circular Reasoning:

 

·         Example: "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible."

·         Refutation: This argument presupposes the truth of its conclusion within its premise, providing no external validation. Evidence or logic external to the claim is needed to substantiate it.

 

10.  Red Herring:

 

·         Example: In a debate about tax policy, one might say, "But what about all the corruption in government spending?"

·         Refutation: While government corruption is a valid concern, it does not directly address or refute arguments about tax policy. The discussion should return to the specifics of the tax policy in question.

 

These examples and refutations illustrate how recognizing logical fallacies can enhance critical thinking and lead to more robust and honest discourse.

 

The Socratic method:

 

The Socratic Method is a form of inquiry and debate named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. It is characterized by a series of questions and discussions designed to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. Here's how it works:

 

Core Principles:

 

1.      Questioning: Instead of directly providing answers, the Socratic Method involves asking questions that challenge the person being questioned's assumptions, encouraging them to think more deeply about their beliefs.

 

2.      Inductive Reasoning: It often starts with specific examples to lead to general conclusions or principles.

 

3.      Elenchus (Refutation): This involves methodically refuting an interlocutor's statements to expose inconsistencies or refine their understanding.

 

4.      Maieutics (Midwifery): Socrates likened his role to that of a midwife, helping to "give birth" to knowledge or truth that is already within the individual but not yet fully formed or recognized.

 

How to Use the Socratic Method:

 

Here are some steps and examples for employing the Socratic Method:

 

Step-by-Step Application:

 

1.      Start with a Question or Statement:

 

Example: "What is justice?"

 

2.      Ask Clarifying Questions:

 

Example: "Can you give an example of something that you consider just?"

Follow-Up: "What makes that action just?"

 

3.      Challenge Assumptions:

 

Example: "If justice is giving each person what they deserve, how do we determine what someone deserves?"

Further Question: "Is it just if different people have different notions of what is deserved?"

 

4.      Explore Contradictions or Hypotheticals:

 

Example: "If a law is unjust, should we still call obedience to it 'just'? Why or why not?"

Hypothetical: "Imagine a society where theft is legal. Would stealing still be unjust in that context?"

 

5.      Lead to Self-Examination:

 

Example: "Do you always act according to what you believe is just? Why or why not?"

Self-Reflection: "How does your definition of justice affect your daily actions?"

 

6.      Generalize from Specifics:

 

Example: After discussing various scenarios, you might ask, "What common characteristics do all these just actions share that we can say define justice?"

 

Practical Examples in Education or Discussion:

 

In a Classroom:

 

Teaching Ethics:

 

·         Teacher: "What makes an action ethical?"

·         Student: "If it doesn't harm anyone."

·         Teacher: "What if telling a lie saves someone from harm? Is that ethical?"

·         This continues, challenging the student to refine their understanding of ethics.

 

In Philosophical Debate:

 

Discussing Freedom:

 

·         "What does freedom mean to you?"

·         "If freedom means doing anything one wants, what happens when one person's freedom restricts another's?"

 

In Personal Development or Counseling:

 

Exploring Self-Knowledge:

 

·         "What do you value most in life?"

·         "Why do you value that? How does this value influence your decisions?"

 

The Socratic Method is not about winning an argument but about fostering a deeper understanding and self-awareness. It's about guiding someone through their reasoning process to discover their answers or to realize the limitations of their current knowledge. This method promotes critical thinking, humility in the face of one's ignorance, and an ongoing pursuit of wisdom.

 

A real-world example of Socratic questions:

 

1.      What do you mean?

 

This question forces one to define their terminology and gets beyond surface similarity.

 

2.      How do you know that?

 

This forces them to give reasons for their definitions. Are they parroting things that they heard? Are their definitions Biblical?

 

3.      What are the implications of this?

 

This question forces an individual to look at the absurdities of their belief system and where it leads.

 

Areas to apply these questions and examples of questions:

 

Normally, it is good to start with epistemology since one needs to know how to know anything. However, in the case of Mormonism, it may be prudent to start with ontological questions since questions in this area quickly reveal the finite nature of the Mormon deity and then allow the questioner to contrast this finite god with scriptural passages on God’s nature and attributes.

 

Ontology or metaphysics, the ultimate nature of reality:

 

What do you mean by God? Has he always been God? Where did he come from? Are there other gods in the universe like your god? Does your god have a body? If he is a glorified man with a body, is he limited or finite? How does he travel? A spaceship? How does he communicate with the other gods in the universe? Intergalactic phone service? Celestial conferences?

 

Keep contrasting the Mormon’s answers with scriptural passages on God’s attributes. Also, remember that they want you to surrender your beliefs and adopt theirs. Keep asking the question, “How do you know that?” to expose their lack of Biblical understanding. It is also helpful at different points in the discussion to say, “I’m not sure what you mean; go on.”

 

The Mormon god is finite or limited because of his body. Some additional questions you could ask to expose the implications of this are: “Has your god with a body traveled everywhere in the universe? If so, when? How long would it take him to do this? Does your god know everything? If he had not been everywhere in the universe, how could he have been? Could your god ever be overthrown by other gods from a different part of the universe that has a different agenda than his? If not, how do you know that? Can you give me a guarantee of this? Based upon what? Is there a creator/ creature distinction? Do men and the gods exist in a realm of being in general? Is God further up the scale of being than man? Are there two types of being: created/uncreated? Is reality ultimately one (a unity) or many (a diversity)? How do the universals relate to the particulars?”

 

The Christian God cannot be overthrown since there are no other gods! Our God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (everywhere present), and omniscient (all-knowing).

 

Keep pressing questions like: If there are more senior gods in the universe, why not put my faith in one of them? Why put my faith in a junior god? Could your god ever step down from being a god? If he became a god, it is conceivable that he could quit someday.

 

After pressing them with questions for a while, you can summarize their position. You could say: “I think you are saying that your god was once a man and now is god. There are other gods in the universe like the god you worship, and you may become a god yourself in the future.” Contrast what they tell you with Biblical verses on God and His attributes and that God declares that there are no other gods.

 

With a bit of creativity, the above example can be adapted to almost any encounter on a whole range of subjects.

 

The use of logic in Christian apologetics:

 

Logic plays a crucial role in Christian apologetics for several reasons, enhancing both the defense and dissemination of Christian doctrine:

 

1.      Foundation for Rational Discourse:

 

·         Clear Communication: Logic provides a framework for clear, coherent, and persuasive arguments. Apologists use logic to articulate Christian teachings in a manner that can be understood and evaluated by both believers and skeptics.

 

·         Consistency: Christianity claims to uphold truth, and logic helps ensure that theological arguments are internally consistent, avoiding contradictions that could undermine credibility.

 

2.      Defense Against Criticism:

 

·         Refutation of Misconceptions: Apologists often face objections based on misunderstandings or misrepresentations of Christian doctrine. Logic allows for the systematic debunking of these misconceptions by showing where arguments against Christianity fail to hold logical water.

 

·         Countering Atheistic Arguments: Many criticisms of Christianity come from philosophical or scientific standpoints. Apologists use logic to critique atheistic arguments, demonstrating flaws in reasoning like circular arguments or logical fallacies.

 

3.      Support for Christian Truth Claims:

 

·         Logical Arguments for God's Existence: Apologists employ logical arguments like the Cosmological, Teleological, or Moral arguments to argue for the existence of God. These arguments rely on logical inference from premises about the universe or human experience to a divine creator.

 

·         Coherence of Christian Doctrine: Logic is used to show that Christian doctrines (e.g., the Trinity, the Incarnation) can be coherently understood and defended against claims of incoherence or contradiction.

 

4.      Engagement with Other Worldviews:

 

·         Comparative Analysis: Logic allows apologists to rationally compare Christianity with other worldviews, highlighting where Christianity might offer more logical coherence or explanatory power.

 

·         Interfaith Dialogue: In dialogues with adherents of other religions or philosophical systems, logic serves as a common ground for discussion, helping to clarify agreements and disagreements.

 

5.      Moral and Ethical Reasoning:

 

·         Ethical Justifications: Christian moral teachings are often defended through logical arguments that link divine commands or the nature of God to moral imperatives, providing a rational basis for Christian ethics.

 

6.      Scriptural Interpretation:

 

·         Hermeneutical Tool: Logic aids in interpreting scripture by providing methods for understanding textual coherence and the logical flow of biblical narratives or theological arguments within the text itself.

 

7.      Evangelism and Conversion:

 

·         Persuasion: Logical arguments can be persuasive to those who value reason, helping to lead individuals to faith or at least to a more open consideration of Christian claims.

 

·         Intellectual Conversion: For many, intellectual assent is a significant part of conversion or commitment to faith, where logical arguments can play a pivotal role.

 

8.      Education and Training:

 

·         Training Apologists: Logic is essential in the training of Christian apologists, equipping them with the tools to think critically, argue effectively, and respond to challenges.

 

While faith is central to Christianity, the use of logic in apologetics does not diminish the role of faith but rather complements it by providing a rational defense of why one might believe in Christian teachings. This balance between faith and reason has been a part of Christian thought since early Church fathers like Augustine and Aquinas, who saw no conflict between true faith and sound reason. However, apologists also acknowledge that logic alone cannot compel belief; it can clear intellectual obstacles, but faith involves an element of trust and personal experience with God.

 

The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.

 

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

 

Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.