Logical fallacies/Page 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:39, 29 September 2005

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Ad hominem (also called argumentum ad hominem or personal attack)

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy attacks the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.

It is important to note that there is at least one case when an attack upon the speaker is not fallacious, but actually appropriate. If a witness is making a statement about certain facts or events, and if the witness can be shown to be unreliable (e.g. he has lied about other issues) then this is a legitimate attack. One cannot challenge a person's logical argument on these grounds, but one can challenge the evidence which they themselves present.

Fallacious: E.D. Howe ought to be ignored because he was a drinker.
Proper: E.D. Howe has been shown to have lied about what Joseph wrote in example #1, #2, and #3. Why should we then believe Howe when he tells us what he personally observed, since he has been willing to lie in order to discredit Joseph?

ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: This fallacy is one of the most commonly used, and has been used since the earliest days of the Church to discredit Joseph Smith. Joseph was often the target of such efforts; many of the early anti-Mormon "affidavits" against Joseph and his family (charging them with laziness, corruption, 'money-digging', immoral life, and the like) were designed to attack the messengers because the message was unpalatable.
Rebuttal: Brigham Young encountered such tactics frequently, and his response is appropriate:

I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I ws personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on, brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.

—Brigham Young, "The Gospel Like a Net Cast Into the Sea, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 9 November 1856, Vol. 4 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1857), 77–78.

ad hominem circumstantial (also called ad hominem circumstantiae)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: This fallacy argues that a person makes an argument because of his circumstances. "Well, of course a Mormon would make that argument, since they can't bear to admit their faith might be wrong." Appeals to cognitive dissonance as a non-explanation often fall into this category.
Rebuttal: A person may well have many motivations for making an argument. However, one must confront the argument itself. Critics attempt to use this tactic to dismiss anything a member of the Church has to say about a topic. With members excluded, only non-Mormon (or anti-Mormon) authors have any 'credibility.' Note too that the same fallacious argument can be turned back on any critic—the critic is not a member, and so may have a vested interested in disproving a religion that makes uncompromising truth claims, calls on them to repent, etc. Thus, the argument is impotent in any case, since it can be applied with equal force to both sides.

ad hominem tu quoque (also called you too argument)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: This fallacy argues that "because you are guilty of the same thing of which you are accusing me, your accusation is meritless.

A common example is for critics to respond to charges that they have used dishonest or inaccurate footnotes by pointing out that some of Hugh Nibley's footnotes were inaccurate.

Rebuttal: One might be a hypocrite for criticizing someone for something of which one is guilty, but this does not make the claim any less true. If one murderer tells another murderer he is a killer, this does not make the claim untrue. Nibley's footnotes being inaccurate are irrelevent to the question of whether the critic has used misleading footnotes. Even if every Nibley footnote is wrong, this does not excuse the critic from his own mistakes. (Note that an attack on Nibley's footnotes might be appropriate if the apologist was citing an inaccurate Nibley footnote as evidence for a position.)
See also:
- Two wrongs make a right

Amphibology (also called amphiboly)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Appeal to authority (also called argumentum ad verecundiam or argument by authority)

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy relies on a report of what someone (e.g. a scholar) or something (e.g. a sacred text like the Bible) says about a topic, rather than considering the evidence (if any) upon which such opinions may be based.

Argument: The Smithsonian insitute says that the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with ancient America. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is not an ancient work.
Rebuttal: While the Smithsonian doubtless has experts on the subject of ancient America, it is not necessarily clear that those experts have taken the Book of Mormon and its evidences seriously. A much more persuasive argument would be for a Smithsonian expert to examine the evidence advanced by Book of Mormon proponents, and explain why it does or does not integrate with what is known about ancient America.

Especially in highly technical fields, a referral to what authorities think about a topic may be a good gauge of what the evidence currently tells us; however, in case of disagreement it is much better to consider the primary evidence itself.

See also:
- Appeal to belief

Variations on this fallacy

The authority cited is not an expert in this field - e.g. A Biblical scholar might be very knowledgeable in his own field, but know relatively little about the Book of Mormon.
An authority is miscited or misunderstood - e.g. LDS prophets are experts on LDS doctrine, but the critic may have misrepresented their position. See Selective or Distorted Quotation
The extent of the authority is not appreciated - e.g. LDS prophets are experts, but they are not considered infallible. Their statements are not doctrinally binding unless ratified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. See General Authorities' Statements as Scripture
The authority may be biased - e.g. an atheist may be predisposed to disregard any evidence which would suggest that Joseph Smith saw God. Likewise, a Mormon might be predisposed to overlook evidence which questioned Joseph's truthfulness.
The authority might not represent his field - e.g. Citing a general authority who was later disciplined or excommunicated is not an honest way to reflect the 'consensus' of LDS belief.

Appeal to belief

Wikipedia entry

In apologetics, this might also be called the appeal to unbelief. It asserts that something must be true simply because most people (including, perhaps, the reader) believes it.

Argument: "Everyone knows God doesn't speak to man"; "all Christians accept that the Bible canon is closed"; "everyone knows religious people are deluded."
Rebuttal: History is full of ideas which were once believed by nearly everyone (e.g. the sun orbits the earth, bleeding the sick with leeches will help them get better) and which are now known to be false.
See also:
- Appeal to authority - the 'authoirty' in this case is 'public opinion' or 'everyone'
- Cognitive dissonance

Appeal to consequences (also called argumentum ad consequentiam)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Appeal to emotion

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Appeal to flattery

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Appeal to the majority (also called argumentum ad populum)

See Appeal to belief

Appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Appeal to ridicule

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Appeal to spite (also called argumentum ad odium)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Two wrongs make a right

Wikipedia entry

Argument: The LDS committed some (real or imagined) wrong, therefore a dishonest or inappropriate tactic on the critics' part is held to be not serious. Critics who believe that the Church is a Satanic organization, or a brand of false religion often accept the rationale that "the end justifies the means" or that "lying for Jesus" is acceptable.
Rebuttal: Whatever the Mormons' faults or errors, dishonest debating or polemnics do not help in the search for truth. They also ill-become those who claim to be Christians.

See also
- Quote mining, selective quotation, and distortion
- ad hominem tu quoque

Wishful thinking

Wikipedia entry’’

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Appeal to motive

Wikipedia Link

This fallacy seeks to discredit an opponent by questioning his/her motives. Sometimes it is merely suggested that motive is possible without demonstrating its reality.

Argument: "Apologists aren't worth listening to, because they are Mormons."; "Brigham Young's opinion on Joseph Smith's character cannot be trusted, because Brigham was an apostle and utterly committed to Mormonism."
Rebuttal: The quality of an argument does not depend on who makes it.

Note that any argument along these lines used against a member of the Church can also be used against any critic of the Church, who may have motives for disagreeing with the Church that have a religious or personal basis. This is why only the facts should be considered.

See also:
- Ad hominem

Appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Appeal to probability

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Appeal to tradition (also called argumentum ad antiquitatem or appeal to common practice)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Argument from fallacy (also called argumentum ad logicam)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Argument from ignorance (also called argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Argument from silence (also called argumentum ex silentio)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Argumentum ad baculum (also called appeal to force)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Argumentum ad crumenam (also called appeal to wealth)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

== Argumentum ad lazarum (also called appeal to poverty) ==Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Argumentum ad nauseam (also called argument from repetition)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Argumentum ad numerum

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Base rate fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Bandwagon fallacy (also called appeal to popularity, appeal to the people, or argumentum ad populum)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Begging the question (also called petitio principii, circular argument or circular reasoning)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Cartesian fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Conjunction fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Correlative based fallacies

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Fallacy of many questions (also called complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question or plurium interrogationum)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

False dilemma (also called false dichotomy or bifurcation)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Denying the correlative

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Suppressed correlative

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Dicto simpliciter

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Accident (also called a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Converse accident (also called a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Equivocation

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

False analogy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

False premise

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

False compromise

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Fallacies of distribution:

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Composition

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Statistical special pleading

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Gambler's fallacy/Inverse gambler's fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Genetic fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Guilt by association

See also:
- Ad hominem

Historian's fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Homunculus fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Ideology over reality

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

If-by-whiskey (argues both sides)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Judgemental language

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Ignoratio elenchi (also called irrelevant conclusion)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Inappropriate interpretations or applications of statistics

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Biased sample

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Correlation implies causation

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Gambler's fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Prosecutor's fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Screening test fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Intentional fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Invalid proof

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Lump of labour fallacy (also called the fallacy of labour scarcity)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Meaningless statement

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Middle ground (also called argumentum ad temperantiam)

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Misleading vividness

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Naturalistic fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Negative proof

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Non sequitur

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Affirming the consequent

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Denying the antecedent

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

No true Scotsman

Wikipedia entry

Some enemies of the Church define 'Christian' in such a way as to exclude the LDS.

Argument: Latter-day Saints are not Christian because they do not believe in the Trinity.
Rebuttal: "Christians" are not defined as those who accept the Trinity, but rather as those who accept Jesus as Son of God and Savior. Since LDS do accept this, they are "Christians," just not "Trinitarian Christians." In other words, "Trinitarian" does not equal "Christian."
See also:
- Ad hominem

Package deal fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Pathetic fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Perfect solution fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Argument: XXXX
Rebuttal: XXXXX
See also:
- XXXXX

Poisoning the well

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy attempts to discredit a person before their arguments are even heard.

Argument: Nothing that anyone who publishes with FAIR or FARMS can be believed, because they are "apologists," and so inherently untrustworthy.
Rebuttal: An "apologist" may have a very good argument or a very bad one. One is only intellectually honest if he/she is willing to consider the argument on its own merits regardless of who raised it. This tactic is used to avoid confronting arguments with which the critic does not wish to deal. All authors have biases; "apologists" are at least up front about theirs, while critics try to play the role of disinterested 'seekers of truth,' though they are as much "apologists" for their own position.