Tools of Apologetics 1.9.5
Logic and Fallacies of Logic
Fallacies Of Concept
Proving or disproving a given statement through logical deduction has to take a clear-cut and non ambiguous path. Certain basic principles guide and control this procedure, and anything that violates this procedure destroys the process of deduction. The results arrived at in such a manner will be wrong due to the fallacies of concept. These fallacies can be divided into the following groups :
1. The error of circular reasoning (Petition Principii): Every syllogism has certain component statements in it, and a logical deduction has to come out of them. But before this deduction can be true, the components of the syllogism (i.e., the premises) must themselves be true. The deduction obtained from the syllogism cannot be obtained to establish the reliability or unreliability of the premises themselves! Their truth should be established independently of the deduction, even before the deduction is ever attempted. If a deduction is used to establish the truth of the given premises, the logician is in error. This is called the error of circular reasoning. It is quite common both in radical theology and in evolutionary/humanistic thinking. For example:
Miracles are impossible and therefore the Bible is false.
The Bible is false because miracles have been shown to be false.
The earth is billions of years old, because evolution demands long ages.
Evolution must be true because the earth is billions of years old.
Rock music must be good because everybody likes it.
Everybody likes rock music because it is good.
2. Fallacy of multiple questions: An interrogation might require a whole chain of questions, but each question in this chain must ask one and only one question. It should be possible for the questioned person to respond with a YES or NO answer. If the YES or NO answer results in unsaid or wrong implications, the interrogators have (in all probability) hidden other questions or statements in their simple-looking question. Thus by choosing the YES or NO answer, the person is forced to imply statements that may or may not be true. This is called the fallacy of multiple questions. It is a powerful tool in the hands of interrogators and mind manipulators. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" or " Are you drunk today?" are questions of this kind, when put to people who don’t indulge in these activities. Whether the respondents answers yes or no, the additional implication cannot be denied — that they are wife-beaters or drunkards. In logical, correct deduction, the correct way would be:
Do you beat your wife ?
If so, have you stopped beating her ?
Do you drink ?
If so, are you drunk today ?
In the fallacious questions mentioned above, the first question of the syllogism is hidden so cleverly that irrespective of the response, the first question is answered in the affirmative. This is a deceptive method of putting one’s prejudiced statements into the mouth of another person. It is seen at work in all kinds of loaded statements and is an effective weapon to neutralize someone who does not understand the trick. The following are some examples :
Don’t you know that science has disproved the existence of God!
Don’t you know that science has disproved the Bible!
Do you still believe in the Bible?
Are you still with that religious crowd?
Like the light-weight judo expert who is able to unbalance and throw his heavy opponent, the fallacy of multiple questions can throw most people off balance. The injury can be serious. The best intellectual strategy is to counter the question with a powerful question. When someone says, "Don’t you know that science has disproved the existence of God?" it is best not to say "No that’s wrong". The protest will take you to a weak defensive position instead of to a powerful offensive! The best would be to ask, "Is that so? Then please tell me which experiment of science has disproved God". This will not only put adversaries on the defensive, but will also expose the logical fallacy of their stand.
3. Fallacy of sidetracking (Ignoratio Elenchi): When the subject matter being discussed is complex, or when it relates to a subject that involves listeners’/readers’ emotions, it is easy to sidetrack them, knowingly or unknowingly. Clever debaters manipulate their emotions and end up discussing an issue that is not at all part of the story. Yet the listeners are so deeply absorbed in the story that they never notice this deviation. This is called the fallacy of sidetracking, and many people make their livings out of it!
The masses (or the mob) are not known for objective and logical thinking on important issues. Consequently, sidetracking has become a widely used trick to cheat people. People who practice this trick have even developed their own fool-proof methods and five of them are given below.
A-The Fallacy Of Argument By Accusation (Argumentum Ad Hominem): In a particular argument one’s opponents might have the stronger and more correct points, yet many times one might be able to discover some weakness or abnormality in their characters that can be played upon and magnified in front of the masses.
Interestingly, the attack is directed against persons and not against the issues that they are discussing, yet one obtains definite results from this manipulation. Once opponents have been discredited by playing upon the emotions of the masses, their position is weakened. This is because the masses are not interested in a logical discussion of the issues involved.
Whenever the relationship between Bible and science is discussed, opponents suppress the real issues. They immediately bring up nasty stories about how organized religion opposes science. The whole debate becomes charged with emotions, and many jump to conclusions against the Bible without entering into a logical investigation of the matter. This is the reason why people who oppose the Bible in a debate have to be reminded repeatedly to stick to facts.
B-The Fallacy Of Argument By Mob Emotions (Argumentum Ad Populum): Emotion is a strong force, and in the hands of a skilled speaker or writer it becomes a destructively powerful tool. Such a person can incite the mob to forget reality, to behave in any way that this person desires. It is common to see this kind of persons manipulating the emotions of people, instead of sticking to facts in a debate.
Human emotions span a wide spectrum — from self pity to strong hatred, and from sadness to uncontrolled ecstasy. People who disregard reason and logic to manipulate human emotions are trying to win their case by appealing to the fallacy of mob emotions.
C-The Fallacy Of Argument By Exploiting The Ignorance Of Listeners (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam): Whenever there is a public controversy, a good number of people become interested in the debate. Many of them even jump into the argument. However very few of them might have sufficient knowledge of or background in the subject to understand the issues involved. Consequently, a good debater can exploit their ignorance to his advantage and win the debate without even presenting his case.
A large number of arguments in politics, morality, population-control, modern music and similar subjects move along this line. People who campaign for destruction always know more than the average person, and they effectively win their case even though their argument is nothing except a logical fallacy.
D-The Fallacy Of Argument By Appealing To The Opinion Of Famous People. (Argumentum Ad Verecundium): Humans are born hero worshippers. They soon discover that some people have been able to do things which they have not been able to do, and immediately start respecting the achievers. Knowingly or unknowingly this respect very soon changes into admiration or even deep reverence. When this revered person issues a statement, the followers accept it as God’s word.
The respect given to people of education, achievement, or position is often exploited by people who try to quote them as authorities. Due to the respect commanded by these people their word is used as an authoritative statement without consideration as to whether they are competent to issue statements on the subject under consideration. Further, almost none of the followers stop to evaluate the logic behind such statements. To them the authority of the person issuing the proclamation is sufficient proof. This kind of argument is a fallacy of logic.
The opinion of authorities in different fields do have a certain legitimate value, but when the proper boundaries are not followed the argument becomes a fallacy. It becomes a fallacy because people’s opinion need not be right merely because they enjoy a position of respect or authority. More serious than this, the method of logic does not depend upon the opinions of people. Rather, it depends upon facts and their mutual interrelation. Therefore all arguments and deductions must ultimately be based upon facts and not upon what people say.
E-The Fallacy Of Argument By Threat (Argumentum Ad Baculum): Logic requires that all arguments be settled by following the rules of deduction and induction. However, when some writers and speakers see that this approach is not working in their favour, they resort to the use of brute force to win their case. This is not logic, but argument by threat. The results will obviously be false.
The force used to win arguments might be actual or potential and the nature of force might be social or even physical. Resorting to such force might bring an apparent victory, but the actual argument has not been won or settled logically. On the contrary, this kind of activity, in the arena of logical discussion, is an acknowledgment that the argument is weak or baseless and that’s why it requires something other than reason and logic to win the case. It is an acknowledgment of failure.
Summary (The Fallacy Of Sidetracking): The fallacy of sidetracking is an important tool in the hands of those who oppose truth. They have developed at least five powerful variants of this fallacy. All of these fallacies are used liberally by those who oppose the Bible in the Bible/Science and Creation/Evolution discussions. Sidetracking is good evidence that the opponents lack evidence to favour them. Logic can be used to expose and tear their argument to pieces.
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats