Tools of Apologetics 1.9.6
Logic and Fallacies of Logic
Fallacies Of Induction 1
The logical processes of both deduction and induction are necessary to gain a better understanding of things around us. Both these processes have definite methods of working, and fallacies arise when any of these methods is used improperly. The fallacies arising out of faulty induction can be divided into four categories :
1-Fallacies Due To Faulty Language.
2-Fallacies Due To Faulty Observation.
3-Fallacies Due To Faulty Logic.
4-Fallacies Due To Human Nature.
Each one of the above needs to be studied in detail, as below:
Fallacies Due To Faulty Language
A good amount of ambiguity and uncertainty is found in the language commonly used for conversation. In spite of this handicap people are able to communicate sufficiently well with one another because their day to day experience helps them to see through the flexibilities of language. However, this kind of flexibility and ambiguity is not allowed in language used for logical deduction and induction.
For proper and valid logic-related activity, the statements used should be non-ambiguous, precise and capable of only one interpretation. When persons do not adhere to these requirements, their arguments produce several kinds of fallacies. Some of these fallacies, connected to faulty language are :
a. Fallacy due to multiple meaning: Multiple meanings for the same word is a strength as well as weakness of human languages. It is a strength when a few words help a person to communicate a variety of meanings. It becomes a weakness when people want to express themselves accurately and without the possibility of distortion or multiple meanings.
Logic deals with accurate conclusions and communications. Therefore one should choose as precise a vocabulary as possible. Words that admit of multiple meanings and that require a great deal of context to express a particular meaning, should have no place in discourses of logic. Yet people at times pick up unsuitable words — words that have multiple meanings, where it is difficult to determine the precise meaning implied. The errors introduced by the use of such words is called fallacy of multiple meaning.
The use of "change" as a synonym for "evolution" is one example. The use of "education" for "indoctrination" and the use of "imagination" for "fantasy" are examples of the fallacy of multiple meaning. Radical scholars, proponents of evolution, and pushers of all kinds of deviant views are experts at using this fallacy to confuse and enslave people.
b. Fallacy due to undefined terms: Many commonly used words are never defined, but people still use them because they can "guess" the meaning. But such words might develop a great "spread" in meaning, so that two persons might mean entirely different things when they use the same word. When commonly used but undefined terms are used in an argument, the fallacy of undefined terms can come up. Take the word "miracle" for example. In a debate a person might be using this word to denote the achievements of science/technology like giant dams, remote controlled aeroplanes, space travel or super computers. Another person might be using the same word to denote things like the changing of water into wine, walking on water, and the resurrection of the dead. As long as the two sides do not make their definitions clear, the debate will go on endlessly without a meaningful conclusion.
Undefined words might hide unexamined connotations that are not substantiated, yet that exert a certain influence upon people. Since the hidden connotation is not examined or verified for truth, the argument goes into wrong directions and leads to erroneous conclusions. Such terms block the process of effective reasoning, and give rise to broad creeds that have no logical basis behind them.
Words like democracy, culture, secular, prohibition (of liquor), discipline, etc. are some examples in this category. These words mean different things to different people, and therefore each one argues from his or her premise, never reaching a definite conclusion. Among Christians words like fundamentalist, evangelical, inerrancy, creationist and rational, etc. fall into this category. The term "evangelical" has been stretched so much in the present generation that people standing at the two extremities of this group will not even recognize one another. Therefore, for any discussion to bear fruit, the intended meaning of these terms must be made clear before beginning the discussion.
c. Fallacies due to figurative language: People quite often use figurative language to create special effects or to lend a special emphasis. Brave persons are often compared to lions, the glory of persons is compared to the sun, and the sweetness of speech is compared to honey.
Figurative speech takes numerous forms, some of them obvious and some very subtle. If figurative speech and its type are not recognized, the sentences containing them will be liable to misinterpretation. This type of misinterpretation leads to many fallacies, and the field of Bible-interpretation is no exception. The "Four corners" of the earth are mentioned many times in the Bible. The "Pillars" of the earth are mentioned to indicate the earth’s stability. When the nature and actions of God are mentioned, terms related to human nature and actions are used to describe them. All of this is figurative speech, and their non-literal or figurative nature must be understood or acknowledged before any correct kind of conclusion can be drawn.
2. Fallacies Due To Faulty Observation
A correct observation of phenomena is necessary before one can make a correct inference. Further, these observations have to be as comprehensive and complete as possible so as to minimize or exclude wrong conclusions. Non-observation of crucial facts and even mal-observation of correct facts, lead to faulty and false conclusions. Human prejudices, preconceptions, tendencies to observe only what is favourable, to ignore what is hostile and similar biases make many of the reported observations less than complete or reliable.
Good/bad signs and omens, superstitions and unfounded fears are common examples of faulty observation. This is also the reason for confusing a twisted rope with a snake and a flying bed sheet on a clothesline with a demon. A large number of quotations from the Bible, produced by rationalists, come into this category of faulty observations. Most of their quotes are incomplete and many of their observations are hasty.
A good example is the criticism of a famous atheist that the Bible condones immorality because it says that David was, "uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself". (II Samuel 6 : 20). The author, however, fails to point out that these were the words of a contemptuous woman (his wife Michal) who "despised him in her heart" because he danced in public. Obviously, the comments of a person who was not objective were not going to be accurate.
What’s more, the historical portion of the same narrative says that "David was wearing a linen ephod" (II Samuel 6 : 14). An ephod was a special piece of clothing, meant specifically to cover nakedness, and not to uncover it, contrary to what Michal said in her despising tones!
a. Fallacies Due To Faulty Reasoning: Logic deals with accurate reasoning, and a good number of examples have been included in this series. However, real-life cases are not all that simple or straightforward. Therefore, the difficulty of practical cases coupled with the possibility of error at every stage of reasoning gives rise to errors that may be called Fallacies Due To Faulty Reasoning. Two widespread fallacies of this group are as follows :
1. Fallacies of hypothesis: An important task of induction is to discover causes and their effects. Most of the times the discovery of cause/effect phenomena on a strict scientific basis is a difficult task. Consequently many people knowingly or unknowingly abandon the strict objective approach and stoop down to hasty generalizations. Almost all such generalizations tend to be wrong. A limited number of carelessly made generalizations turn out to be right, but this is more due to accident than to the process of logic. Since the purpose of logic is not to discover truth through accidents, this method is invalid.
When two events follow each other closely, then many people conclude (without sufficient investigation) that the first event was the cause and the second the effect. Consider the example of a superstitions mother. If someone pays a sincere compliment about the good health of her child and the child falls sick or starts weeping after that, she immediately finds a cause-and-effect relation there. She feels that this person’s "evil" eye, tongue or feeling has caused the sickness. Such people do not consider contrary evidence, because once logic is despised, error has to be defended.
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has been used by many teachers to propagate false generalizations. It is common to hear teachers of social sciences and humanities say that Einstein proved that everything in the Universe, including social and ethical values, are relative. This generalization is false because what Einstein proposed relates only to matter and energy, and not to anything else.When false causes are proposed to explain an unrelated phenomenon and when false generalizations are made, the conclusions are wrong due to false reasoning and this is called a fallacy of Hypothesis.
2. Fallacies due to hasty generalization: In the previous category we discussed the fallacy of "improper" generalization. In such cases the foundation is some well known truth or theory, but the generalization is false. There is another type of generalization that is more widespread, and also more erroneous. When sufficient proof is not available in support of a cherished hypothesis, or when proof is difficult to obtain, people who are eager to come to a conclusion hastily advance a generalisation from the incomplete data available. Such conclusions do not depend upon proper examination of a sufficient amount of data, but rather upon opinions, prejudices and circumstantial evidence. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization. Logic demands that no inference be made before sufficient and compelling evidence is available.
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats