Logical fallacies hijack discussion

[OzSpen]

I have found other common users of logical fallacies online are in comments' sections to newspaper articles. I experienced an example of this recently in, '[SIZE=12pt]Campaign to legalise nude beaches in Queensland’, Brisbane Times, 13 September 2015. Mine is the first in the 'Comments' section at the end of the article as Dougie. If you read the antagonistic responses to my post[/SIZE], you'll see how various commenters used logical fallacies to divert attention from the content of what I posted.

I did send a response pointing out the use of a logical fallacy by one poster but it was not published.

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

I have 4 examples in mind, but let me expound on one: In Matthew 12 we find the Pharisees criticizing Jesus and his disciples for picking corn and preparing it on the Sabbath. Jesus starts his reply by talking about David eating the shewbread. Now, he (Jesus) quickly offers a second point and then a third to make his entire response valid. But initially, he was talking about David and the shewbread while the Pharisees were talking about working on the Sabbath. That alone seems tp be a red herring arguement. Like I said, Jesus quickly brought it into relevance, but my point is that Jesus did point to sonething else outside the initial complaint. Which of course, brings us back to tge importance of hearing the conclusion.

It wasn't a red herring. Jesus used two examples where the law was broken but left the people blameless because they did it for a higher moral purpose as Christ and his disciples also broke the law for the same reason.

Again, I'm not looking to debate or argue. My intentions are simply to point out possible problems that might arise. I have no real problem with such a philosophy other than oneshould be careful with it. It seems to me tgat someone could easily hide behind it and ultimately still be wrong.

It boils down to anyone using logical fallacies have no solid foundation in their argument, no real evidence or proper position. Logical fallacies is all they have to offer and since they are false by nature the person has nothing of value to offer in a discussion.

 

[Butch5]

Whatever happened to the Holy Spirit, or is He just a figment of mans imagination?

Oh but we have the bible. books, cds, dvds colleges who need Him any more, lust just trust mans reasoing.

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Oh how it would be that man could just trust God..

That statement was made to the apostles. It is not a universal statement. Notice Jesus' words " whatsoever I have said unto you."

 

[Butch5]

I agree.
We must take care how we conduct ourselves, even here, in a "safe Christian environment"....after all, this is the internet, and we can't be sure that everyone we meet, even in a forum like this one, is what he or she claims to be.
One thing that immediately makes me suspicious is when someone hides details such as his/her gender, or marital status, or even their age.
Of course I don't expect folks to reveal their address, or such data...but when they won't even tell you if they are male or female, my antennae go up.

Does anyone else feel that way?

It does cause me to wonder why. It's not like anyone can see you or know who you are outside of the forum.

 

[Butch5]

My experience is that many Christians do not know logical fallacies and do not recognise them when they use them. However, humility requires all of us to acknowledge that we are learners and anyone who helps us to see the fallacies we use should be commended.

In relation to the OP, why don't you flesh out for us how Christians could practise these logical fallacies:

• Ad hominem;
• Begging the question (circular reasoning).

We've already had an example in this thread of a Christian who used a red herring fallacy. Why don't you create 2 examples, based on this post by me, of how those 2 logical fallacies could be committed?

Oz

Sure!

Ad Hominem

If your spelling wasn't so bad people might listen to your argument.

Begging the question

Person 1---Fossils prove evolution is true.
Person 2---How's that?
Person 1---Because they take so long to form.

 

[ATP]

1 Cor 8:1 NIV Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

 

[Barrd]

1 Cor 8:1 NIV Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

What I've learned in about these logical fallacies tells me that this is the "red herring" fallacy.
I would have called it the old fashioned bait and switch....

 

[Barrd]

It does cause me to wonder why. It's not like anyone can see you or know who you are outside of the forum.

At the risk of being scolded by Oz for not following the OP...I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Thanks, Butch!

 

[mjrhealth]

It boils down to anyone using logical fallacies have no solid foundation in their argument, no real evidence or proper position. Logical fallacies is all they have to offer and since they are false by nature the person has nothing of value to offer in a discussion.

The truth has its position in God, how does one argue the truth. It is either true or it is a lie. If your foundation is in God how more sure can you be.

Joh_1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Should we not be secure in Christ.?

In all His Love

 

[mjrhealth]

there is no logic to God'.

What do you not understand, everything God creates has order, ever since teh begginning of time. Order is what keeps the planets circling the sun. order is what holds up the heavens , causes the rain to fall, order is what holds us and the world together, order is what kept all life in its place, you know the bit about its own kind?? than along came corruption and disorder, that is why lions eat meat, there was no death before the fall of man. Than how does logic figure in the raising of the dead, angels moving between heaven and earh, Christ walking on water, or even Peter walking on water, our Lords resurection, it all defies logic.

If you desire to know Christ there is only one way, it does not come from reading books, arguing with reasoning and logic, no it comes only with time spent sitting at Hid feet learning from Him. There is no other way.

Luk 10:38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
Luk 10:39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.
Luk 10:40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
Luk 10:41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
Luk 10:42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

In all His Love

 

[OzSpen]

It wasn't a red herring. Jesus used two examples where the law was broken but left the people blameless because they did it for a higher moral purpose as Christ and his disciples also broke the law for the same reason.

It was a red herring logical fallacy because he changed the topic from that of the OP.

It boils down to anyone using logical fallacies have no solid foundation in their argument, no real evidence or proper position. Logical fallacies is all they have to offer and since they are false by nature the person has nothing of value to offer in a discussion.

With this statement, you have here committed a hasty generalization fallacy, which means:

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:

1. X% of all observed A's are B''s.
2. Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.

The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A's are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.
Small samples will tend to be unrepresentative.

Sincerely,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Sure!

Ad Hominem

If your spelling wasn't so bad people might listen to your argument.

Begging the question

Person 1---Fossils prove evolution is true.
Person 2---How's that?
Person 1---Because they take so long to form.

Your ad hominem is a suitable example, but could need a little refinement. Your 'begging the question' is a fair explanation. The conclusion is built into the premise. You end where you began. Or, you can't reach any other conclusion as you presume that will happen.

What is an ad hominem fallacy? This is one that is frequently used by those who attack Christians and Christianity. A claim is rejected because of a personal, irrelevant fact about the person. Generally it involves an attack on the character of the person or his/her situation. This attack is presented as evidence against the argument when it has nothing to do with evidence. It is simply a personal attack.

I had an example of this happen when I took a class in biopsychology when I was a student in the USA. I asked the professor in class about a certain example in the text book. His response was: 'You wouldn't have a clue; your views are b...s'. But he did not abbreviate. He later apologised to me outside of the class for what he said, but there was no apology in class for his ad hominem logical fallacy.

This happened 30 years ago. I was not as conversant then as I am now in logical fallacies. I should have challenged him in class about what he did or gone to the dean of the department to lodge a complaint. I didn't, but was overcome by shock in what the professor did to me in front of my peers.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

What I've learned in about these logical fallacies tells me that this is the "red herring" fallacy.
I would have called it the old fashioned bait and switch....

I agree, it was a red herring fallacy because it changed the topic and did not deal with the matter at hand, especially the topic of the OP.

 

[OzSpen]

If you desire to know Christ there is only one way, it does not come from reading books, arguing with reasoning and logic, no it comes only with time spent sitting at Hid feet learning from Him. There is no other way.

Don't you read Scripture when you come to know Christ? I'm talking about the Scriptures that use the logic of words and sentences (semantics) to communicate Christ to us. I come to know Christ more and more from Scriptures that I daily read. There is logic communicated by the Trinitarian God. Why can't you see this?

 

[ATP]

The truth has its position in God, how does one argue the truth. It is either true or it is a lie. If your foundation is in God how more sure can you be.

Joh_1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Should we not be secure in Christ.?

In all His Love

That's true. Neither present nor future can separate the elect from agape love Rom 8:33, 38-39. That's pretty darn secure.

 

[mjrhealth]

Don't you read Scripture when you come to know Christ? I'm talking about the Scriptures that use the logic of words and sentences (semantics) to communicate Christ to us. I come to know Christ more and more from Scriptures that I daily read. There is logic communicated by the Trinitarian God. Why can't you see this?

If all the bible declares that we could not fit all the works that Christ did in books,

Joh_21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Waht do you think you are going to learn, is it not better to go to teh source, Jesus Him self, He isnt dead,

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1Jn_2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

If you have truly come to Christ, and if you have received teh Holy Spirit, than you have a teacher, which is the greater, the dead letter or the Living Word, Jesus...

So many know the bible so few know Jesus.

Its teh difference between Knowing about, and knowing...

In All His Love

 

[OzSpen]

I don't want to debate the use of this system or philosophy or rules of engagement (for lack of a better term), but I do want to bring up a few questions.

1. What would this system do with one who uses the Socratic Method of reasoning? That is, one who asks a series of questions in order to find a better and concrete conclusion.

2. What of Ecc 12:13 which tells us to hear the conclusion of the whole matter?

I ask these first two questions because it seems to me that one could dismiss an arguement too early. In other words, someone can make a statement which to you may not be relevant when if you'd hold your peace, the relevence will appear.

3. What shall we do with the apostles, servants and even Jesus himself who appear (at least on the surface) to violate such rules?

I have 4 examples in mind, but let me expound on one: In Matthew 12 we find the Pharisees criticizing Jesus and his disciples for picking corn and preparing it on the Sabbath. Jesus starts his reply by talking about David eating the shewbread. Now, he (Jesus) quickly offers a second point and then a third to make his entire response valid. But initially, he was talking about David and the shewbread while the Pharisees were talking about working on the Sabbath. That alone seems tp be a red herring arguement. Like I said, Jesus quickly brought it into relevance, but my point is that Jesus did point to sonething else outside the initial complaint. Which of course, brings us back to tge importance of hearing the conclusion.

4. Is it possible that this system could self destruct? Again, lack of a better term. But I have seen questions posted which are baiting in nature. That is, the question is so carefully asked that theree is only one answer which is logical, yet the question itself is flawed? All objections to the question can be dismissed by waving the red herring flag or any other of these fallacy flags. No, I don't have an example to present, but I'm sure that veterans of this board have seen it before.

Again, I'm not looking to debate or argue. My intentions are simply to point out possible problems that might arise. I have no real problem with such a philosophy other than oneshould be careful with it. It seems to me tgat someone could easily hide behind it and ultimately still be wrong.

In re-reading your post, I want to acknowledge that you have some excellent points here that must be considered in any discussion on this topic. However, the OP deals with mistakes in reasoning, which many Christians seem to be ignorant of or deliberately use to divert attention away from a certain topic.

I briefly answer your 4 questions:

1. There would be no problem with my engagement with someone using the Socratic method of reasoning with a series of questions. The problem of logical fallacies would arise with, say, a red herring fallacy if those questions were not directed to the topic being discussed.

2. I do not disagree with your understanding of Eccl. 12:13 (the KJV gives the better understanding, 'Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter', which seems to be a more accurate understanding than the ESV: 'The end of the matter; all has been heard'. I'm not a KJV-only). Logical fallacies deal with errors of reasoning and not with failure to reach conclusions. It is not rejecting the conclusion or rejecting the notion of waiting until all is heard. They are fallacies of engagement in discussion or debate - in reaching that conclusion.

3. I'm not opposed to hearing the conclusion. It is the kind of reasoning that is included. If I were to jump in and say something like, 'That is not dealing with the topic I raised so it sounds like a red herring to me', Jesus would legitimately respond: 'I'm getting to a conclusion that is directly related to your topic and so is this example I'm giving'.

4. Could the system self destruct? Possibly, but we are talking about errors of logic/reasoning. Those errors could be challenged to be truthful instead of errors, but evidence would need to be presented for me to understand better what is being claimed. Since God has built logic into the universe, logical errors are subject to being influenced by sinful human beings. Of course there is the possibility that errors regarding logical fallacies could be made.

I don't regard logical fallacies as a philosophy but as exposing flaws of reasoning. Could someone hide behind exposing logical fallacies? Perhaps. However, it is more likely (as seen in CyB) that people hide behind their use of logical fallacies in derailing a thread and highjacking (or hijacking) a topic.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

If all the bible declares that we could not fit all the works that Christ did in books,

Joh_21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Waht do you think you are going to learn, is it not better to go to teh source, Jesus Him self, He isnt dead,

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1Jn_2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

If you have truly come to Christ, and if you have received teh Holy Spirit, than you have a teacher, which is the greater, the dead letter or the Living Word, Jesus...

So many know the bible so few know Jesus.

Its teh difference between Knowing about, and knowing...

In All His Love

So, don't you read the Bible to obtain a better knowledge of God?

 

[mjrhealth]

So, don't you read the Bible to obtain a better knowledge of God?

No I ask God so I can get a better understanding of the bible. He isnt dead you know,

God is teh God of the living not the dead.

I would rather know God and Jesus than teh bible. Knowing the bible cant save you.

Php_3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

And he was a very learned man, Pharisee of pharisees he called himself.

In All His Love

 

[OzSpen]

No I ask God so I can get a better understanding of the bible. He isnt dead you know,

God is teh God of the living not the dead.

I would rather know God and Jesus than teh bible. Knowing the bible cant save you.

Php_3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

And he was a very learned man, Pharisee of pharisees he called himself.

In All His Love

You have erected a straw man logical fallacy.

So you would rather know Jesus than the Bible?? You can't know Jesus apart from the revelation of Jesus IN the Bible. That's the false view you have created with your straw man fallacy.

Oz