Logical fallacies/Page 1

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 definition

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 definition

• 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 definition

• 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 applies with either force to both sides.

ad hominem tu quoque (also called you too argument)

Wikipedia definition

• 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 footnote as evidence for a position.)

Appeal to emotion

including:

Correlative based fallacies

including:

Dicto simpliciter

including:

Inappropriate interpretations or applications of statistics

including:

Non sequitur

including:

No true Scotsman

Wikipedia definition

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."

Poisoning the well

Wikipedia definition

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.

Questionable cause (also called non causa pro causa)

including:

Syllogistic fallacies

including:

Further reading

External links

• Wikipedia entry on logical fallacies