![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{Articles FAIR copyright}} +{{FairMormon}})) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{Articles(.*)}} +)) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{FairMormon | + | {{FairMormon}} |
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader | {{FAIRAnalysisHeader | ||
|title=Logical fallacies | |title=Logical fallacies | ||
Line 384: | Line 384: | ||
{{FurtherReading}} | {{FurtherReading}} | ||
− | + | ||
[[Category:Reference]] | [[Category:Reference]] |
Page 3 | A FAIR Analysis of:
Logical fallacies |
(also called irrelevant conclusion, ignoratio elenchi - "ignorance of the issue")
Wikipedia entry
This fallacy uses an unrelated issue to distract the audience's attention.
(also called hypostatization)
Wikipedia entry
This fallacy treats an abstract idea as if it were real.
Need LDS example if possible
(also called subjectivist fallacy)
Wikipedia entry
Relevance for apologetics?
(i.e. it happened so it was bound to)
Wikipedia entry
This fallacy assumes that something which happened was inevitable. It is a claim made with the benefit of hindsight, but provides no rational reason for believing that what did happen was what would inevitably happen.
The burden of proof properly rests on the claimant--the person who makes a claim must back it up. It is not the responsibility of others to prove that a claim is "not true."
This fallacy asserts that if the argument is granted, a consequence will inevitably happen. This consequence is painted as inexorable and negative; thus, the audience is encouraged to reject the argument.
This fallacy creates a one-sided argument by including favorable data and excluding unfavorable data through improper means. Tactics include:
Important note: critics might well point out that appeals to spiritual witnesses and "testimony" are special pleading, because they make reference to events . This is true to the extent that an LDS person expects the critic to take his word for the spiritual witness. However, LDS doctrine teaches that spiritual witnesses are available to all seekers; the witness given the LDS is ultimately to persuade him or her, and no one else. Thus, testimony may explain why an LDS remains convinced, despite a personal inability to articulate a rational basis for faith on a particular point. To use it to end a discussion and convince another, however, is special pleading. To simply offer it as an explanation for why one continues to believe is not.
These fallacies are less commonly seen in anti-Mormon writing, since mathematics and statistics generally play little role in such discussion. There are included her for completeness, and additions will be made if examples are encountered.
(also called a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)
Wikipedia entry
(also called a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter)
Wikipedia entry
Wikipedia entry see also Wikipedia entry for Inverse gambler's fallacy
This fallacy involves a misunderstanding of probability.
This fallacy is restricted to the field of mathematics, in which a mathematical principle is used improperly, producing a self-contradictory result.
(also called the fallacy of labour scarcity or zero sum fallacy)
Wikipedia entry
This fallacy assumes that a variable is independent of the situation under consideration, while in fact it is interrelated to other variables. For example, one might assume that in an economy the amount of money someone earns must result in someone else losing the same amount of money. However, this is false, since economic systems may create weath or value, meaning that one person's gain need not be someone else's 'loss'.
Need LDS example if possible
This fallacy mistakes "regression to the mean" as a significant signal, rather than a normal statistical artifact.
In this fallacy, statistics are 'massaged' or expressed in such a way as to mislead.
This fallacy sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The speaker then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.
This is one of the most common anti-Mormon approaches. Rarely do anti-Mormon authors fairly convey LDS opinion and thought on a target, and even more rarely do such authors engage LDS scholarship. Most anti-Mormon arguments are decades old, and have been "asked and answered" many times. Thanks to the straw man tactic, anti-Mormons can continue to recycle attacks.
This fallacy refuses to engage counterarguments, and simply focuses on the way in which the counterargument has been presented.
A common anti-Mormon tactic is to respond to a rebuttal by complaining that the apololgists' response is ad hominem, and then decline to discuss further. Asserting this is not sufficient; he should demonstrate which parts of the rebuttal (if any) are ad hominem, and reply to other substantive issues.
These fallacies are violations of the rules of logic. Non-LDS examples have been chosen for simplicity.
Fallacy takes the form:
Error made: Premise 1 does not exclude both A and B being true.
Wikipedia entry Lander Philosophy Link]
This fallacy occurs when there is one negative premise:
Error made: One premise is negative, and yet a positive conclusion is drawn.
Wikipedia entry
Lander Philosophy Link
This fallacy has two universal premises, and draws a particular conclusion.
This fallacy assumes that specific entities exist from universal declarations.
Wikipedia entry
Lander Philosophy Link
This fallacy uses two negative premises, to draw a third negative conclusion.
(also called quaternio terminorum)
Wikipedia entry
Lander Philosophy Link
Nothing > good meal, but
Poor meal > nothing, so
Poor meal >good meal.
This is a fallacy because there are four terms in the syllogism. The word "nothing" is being used in two different senses (see Amphibology). Thus, the syllogism is not:
Instead, what is acutally argued is:
(also called fallacy of two negative premises)
Lander philosophy link
Error made: Both premises are negative, yet a positive conclusion is reached.
Wikipedia entry
Lander Philosophy Link
In this case, the "middle" is the phrase "Mormon." While it is clear that if George is an FAIR apologist, he is a Mormon, it is not clear that all Mormons are apologists. Thus, Premise 1 tells us that:
Wikipedia entry
Lander Philosophy Link
Wikipedia entry
Lander Philosophy Link
This fallacy takes data from its context, and thereby tries to make it appear more 'impressive' than it truly is. The name comes from an example of a Texas gunslinger who shoots randomly at a barndoor, and then afterward paints a target around each bullet hole. The holes are random, but appear to prove that the gunslinger is a 'great shot.'
In this fallacy, cause and effect are reversed.
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now