Tools of Apologetics 1.9.4
Logic and Fallacies of Logic
Fallacies Of Multiple Meaning
Deduction can run into grave error when the meaning of the words used is not consistently maintained. Clever debaters frequently use this kind of verbal manipulation, the major categories of which are:
1. Errors due to ambiguous terms: Words can be of many types, and not all of them are suitable for use in syllogisms. For logical deduction the terms used should be specific in their meaning and interpretation. If the words used have multiple meanings, or if their meaning is ambiguous, then the deduction will tend to be wrong. Words like star, art, junction, fix, sickness, etc. tend to have many meanings. Unqualified use of these words is likely to give rise to errors of deduction. Statements which use ambiguous terms, or terms with multiple meanings, will not be sufficiently clear for meaningful deduction. The major term, the minor term, as well as the middle term should be free of this error before a correct conclusion can be obtained.
2. Fallacy arising out of figure of speech: Figures of speech are a necessary part of any living language. Almost all people use words in a non-literal way, but here we are not referring to that kind of use. Rather, our reference is to different words which originate from one and the same root. Also, some words have the same form, but different meanings (homonyms). The use of different words deriving from the same root and the use of homonyms, cause massive confusion in deduction. This is called fallacy arising out of figures of speech. Consider the following example:
Question: Did you eat the "whole"…?
Answer: How could I ever eat the "hole"…..!
3. Fallacy of composition: Many times an event affects one or more persons in a group. Or, a particular action/principle might be found that affects individuals. If such an action/principle is then extrapolated to the whole group without justification, the result will be false. This is called the fallacy of composition. For example,
A cannot eat the whole amount of food
B cannot eat the whole amount of food
C cannot eat the whole amount of food
———————————————
A, B, and C together cannot eat the whole amount of food.
Even to a casual listener it is obvious that this conclusion need not be true. Yet this kind of fallacy is often called upon to attack Christians. For example,
A is a Christian, but is a very bad character.
B is a Christian, but is a very bad character.
—————————————————————–
All Christians are bad characters.
This is a common form of attack from those who like to oppose Christians. When this fallacy is repeated frequently, many start thinking that it is true. Various shades of this argument are frequently directed against Christianity and the Christian faith. This is what’s done by rationalists and humanists throughout the world. In the same way the Christian community in India has been discredited through films. Indian films often depict Christians as the worst people in society (drunkards, thugs, murderers, immoralists and owners of gambling/prostitution dens). Consequently, most Indians believe that Christians are the dregs of society.
4. Fallacy of Division: This is the exact opposite of the fallacy of composition. When something that is applicable only to a group (or entity) as a whole is applied wrongly to individual members of that group this kind of fallacy arises. For example,
No one can read the whole Bible in a day
Proverbs is a part of the Bible
————————————————————–
Therefore none can read Proverbs in a day
Obviously the deduction is false
5 Fallacy of accident: Many times the meaning of a certain statement might apply only in a general way. At other times a particular statement might be valid in a particular way. But if the general statement is applied to particulars, or if the particular statement is applied in a general way, the fallacy of accident takes place. For example,
Indians are religious
Rajan is an Indian
——————————-
Rajan is religious.
The above conclusion need not be correct because its method of deduction is faulty. While Indians in general are religious, every Indian needs not be religious. Further, the major premise does not imply this about each and every individual. The same error, but in the opposite way, is seen in the following example.
A typist must be efficient in his job
My office employs a large number of typists
——————————————————————
All typists in my office are efficient.
The conclusion need not be correct because the major premise does not indicate that all typists in a given office are certainly efficient. Going from particular to general is frequently seen in erroneous philosophies and generalizations:
Avoiding work is good when one is sick -Therefore avoiding work is good always
Albert Einstein demonstrated that time is relative -Therefore Einstein demonstrated that everything is relative- Therefore there are no absolutes!
6 Fallacy of dilemma: We have already seen that the major and minor premises must have a definite connection with each other. But if the terms in the major premises are not connected with each other, and when the minor premise is not properly connected with the major premise, no meaningful deduction is possible. If a person is forced to make a deduction from premises that are not properly connected, this forced deduction will in all probability be wrong. This kind of error is called the fallacy of dilemma.
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats