Changes

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[Deduction|deductive arguments]], and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[Principle of induction|inductive arguments]], and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument. That is, an informally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which may be true or false, but which the fallacious argument does not prove; a formally fallacious argument gives a conclusion which is always false.  

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[Deduction|deductive arguments]], and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[Principle of induction|inductive arguments]], and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.  

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

*Therefore, P is true

*Therefore, P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." Another example: "Might makes right." Or, the threat of persecution, rebellion, revolt or war.

 

This appeal is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

 

See [[Trial by combat]].

===Appeal to pity===

===Appeal to pity===

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====

A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you too") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen

*Person A argues that P should not happen

*Therefore, Person A's argument is incorrect

*Therefore, Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My rival does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company. Still another example, often seen in international politics, is [[whataboutism]].

===="False Causality" ====

===="False Causality" ====

:Therefore P is true

:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the roman gods, but they were proven wrong.

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others. After all, millions of people believed in the Roman gods, but they were proven wrong.

 

The converse argument holds that because a position is unpopular and controversial, even [[Guilt by Association#The Galileo gambit|ridiculed, denounced and persecuted by the majority]], and has been proven by the majority to be in error, that that position is ''[[ipso facto]]'' (by the fact) proven to be correct and true. For example: [[Elitism]], [[Racism]], [[Sect]]s, [[Cult]]s, [[International Flat Earth Society]], [[LGBTQIAPK]] supporters.

===Special pleading===

===Special pleading===

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."  However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence.  Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed.  For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true.  In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."  However, sometimes, absence of evidence can be so overwhelming that it constitutes strong evidence of absence.  Such a situation arises when we have good reason to believe that the absent evidence would have been uncovered by now if it existed.  For example, since evidence of the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]] would surely have come to light by now, but has not done so, it is reasonable to assume that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, i.e., that the [[null hypothesis]] is true.  In such cases, absence of evidence, while perhaps not conclusive, is strong evidence of absence.

Assertions of evidence of corruption of Christian doctrine and [[Great Apostasy|apostasy]] from the faith is seen by Protestant and Fundamentalist apologists in the evident contrast of the 16th century doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which the Reformers assert was original Christianity, against the clearly "Catholic doctrines" in the [[Ante-Nicene Fathers]] which refute them. The utter historical silence due to a total lack of any supporting extant evidence of Protestant or Mormon theology in any of the writings of the first four centuries of Christianity by any of the known heretics and sects is argued as evidence that a monstrous apostasy must have occurred. (This is also a form of [[circular reasoning]]. Compare [[Memory hole]] and [[Revisionism]].)

Another example from history. Assertions of evidence of corruption of Christian doctrine and [[Great Apostasy|apostasy]] from the faith is seen by Protestant and Fundamentalist [[Apologetics|apologists]] in the evident contrast of the 16th century doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which the Reformers assert was original Christianity, against the clearly "Catholic doctrines" in the [[Ante-Nicene Fathers]] which refute them. The utter historical silence about any fundamental [[paradigm shift]] in doctrine after the first century is due to a total lack of any supporting extant evidence of Protestant or Mormon theology in any of the writings of the first four centuries of Christianity by any of the known heretics and sects. This very fact is argued by Protestants and Mormons as sure and certain evidence that a monstrous apostasy must have occurred, because there is no evidence that it ever did, and no evidence of their unmistakable doctrines can be found, leading them to the conclusion that there was a massive [[cover up]]. (This is also a form of [[circular reasoning]]. Compare [[Memory hole]] and [[Revisionism]].)  

 

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''"  For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]].  Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].

A particular form of the argument from silence is the ''argument from personal incredulity,'' which takes the form "I cannot believe/understand/explain ''P;'' therefore, not-''P.''"  For example, someone who does not understand why [[God]] would condemn [[homosexuality]] or condemn sinners to eternal [[hell]] may commit this fallacy and conclude that the relevant Bible passages should be [[Cafeteria Christianity|rejected]].  Another particular form is the [[black-swan fallacy]].

The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>

The argument from silence often results from a misplaced [[burden of proof]].<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Fallacy: Burden of proof]</ref>

===False cause===

===False cause===

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

'''Un'''equivocal means to leave no doubt about the exact meaning of what is said, to be completely clear, allowing no misunderstanding.

'''Un'''equivocal means leaving no doubt about the exact meaning of what is said, being completely clear, allowing no misunderstanding.

===Moving the Goalposts===

===Moving the Goalposts===

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

For example, Darwinists claim that asking how the theory of evolution explains the origin of life is "moving the goalposts," even though it is a logical question to ask.

==References==

== Atheism and logical fallacies ==

 

 

==See also==

==See also==

*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]

*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]

* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp.&nbsp;201–218 (1996)

* Sagan, Carl. "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" in ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark';' Ballantine: New York, pp.&nbsp;201–218 (1996)

{{Liberalism}}

{{Liberalism}}

[[Category:Logic]]

[[Category:Logic]]

[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]

[[Category:Logical Fallacies| ]]