Always Ready Chap 28 Pt. 2 Logical Fallacies

Reformed Rookie

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Proverbs 10: The Acid Test Pt. 3

00:41

OK, here we are. We're in chapter 28. We've already looked at four chapters of four sections.

00:52

And this section is where we get more into the nitty gritty. We're looking at answers to apologetic challenges and chapter 28's tools of apologetics.

01:03

Now, we've already looked at several of these three items here, prejudicial conjecture, unargued philosophical bias, and key intellectual sins.

01:13

That's what we did last week. So tonight, we're going to look at two more of the tools of apologetics.

01:21

And this was our introduction, and I just want to read this again because I think it's important. An army cannot be expected to wage a successful battle if its soldiers are unfamiliar with the various weapons they have at their disposal for dealing with the enemy.

01:36

Likewise, a builder cannot construct or repair a house if he does not know what kinds of carpenter and plumbing tools are available to him and how to use them.

01:47

In the same way, Christians who want to defend the faith should prepare for answering the criticisms of unbelievers by familiarizing themselves with the tools of reasoning and argumentation that can be enlisted in apologetics.

02:03

That's just the introduction. We read that last week, but I thought it was germane to read it again.

02:11

First tool that we're going to look at tonight is contradictory presuppositions.

02:17

And this is important, and you'll be able to see just how practical these tools are.

02:25

When we talk to unbelievers about their views, especially their worldviews, we should be especially sensitive to hear or discern what their controlling assumptions are about the nature of reality.

02:38

Remember, that's metaphysics. About the nature of knowledge, that's epistemology.

02:44

And about what is right or wrong in human behavior, and that is their ethics.

02:50

Now remember, we've looked at this in the past, and this is where our battleground is.

02:58

Remember, we've talked about it in the past, not getting so caught up in specific results of their thinking, but always bringing them back to their underlying presuppositions.

03:12

And the lessons tonight is going to show you exactly why we want to do that. Bonson says, as we say, everybody does philosophy, but not everybody does it well.

03:25

Not everybody reflects self -consciously about such matters and seeks a cogent and consistent outlook.

03:33

This is important that you understand. Notice what he says, not everybody reflects self -consciously about these matters of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.

03:45

That's why when you start to debate or argue, and when

03:50

I say argue, I mean that in a logical sense, it's not a screaming match.

04:00

Most people have no idea what their view on metaphysics is.

04:07

They have no idea what their epistemology is. It's just haphazard things that they've thought, and they put all of these fragmentation pieces into their mind, and there's no consistency to it.

04:19

And that's what we're going to end. That's a strong point for us, if we have.

04:27

So if we're not prepared, then it's like two fools talking over and under each other and never coming to meet.

04:37

So we're still looking at contrary presuppositions. So Christians must learn to listen closely.

04:46

Let the other person do a lot of the talking, because that's how you lead them down the path that you want to get them on.

04:56

One of the things in an interrogation technique, oh, wait, maybe I shouldn't tell you this, in case you're ever arrested.

05:06

One of the interrogation techniques is just to get the guy talking. Let him talk.

05:11

And once he gets talking, people start always will reveal themselves. And if you get your opponent talking, sooner or later, he's going to reveal what's in his heart.

05:24

So we have to learn to listen closely to what the critics of the faith are saying and seek to identify what is being taken for granted by the critic.

05:33

He may not realize what he's taking for granted, but if you're listening carefully, you'll be able to pick up any of his contradictory presuppositions.

05:42

He says, we must point out then, analyze, and criticize the presuppositions of our opponents.

05:51

In the nature of the case, the conflict between the tenacious unbeliever and the faithful believer will come down to a matter of differing presuppositions.

06:02

That's what we've been saying all along. You have to get to the level of presuppositions. When we identify the presuppositions of the unbeliever, we will see in case after case, indeed, in every case ultimately, that the unbeliever has an unmanaged and irresolvable tension.

06:24

That's actually our next point is these unresolved tensions.

06:31

Between his operating assumptions, what are his operating assumptions?

06:36

His belief about reality, about knowledge, and ethics.

06:43

And if you listen carefully and get the person talking and asking him the right questions, you will see this tension.

06:51

And what we mean by tension is that they are not in agreement. What he believes about where his knowledge comes from and his view of reality and his code of ethics will not be in harmony with each other.

07:06

And that's when he says, look what Pronson says. His basic beliefs about reality, knowledge, ethics do not comport with each other, do not work harmoniously with each other, or outright contradict each other.

07:20

That's a big likelihood. And if you can point out an absolute contradiction, then you're way, way ahead of the game.

07:32

OK. We're going to look at four tensions. And in fact, I'll give you the outline for tonight.

07:39

First, we're going to look at these four tensions of contradictory presuppositions.

07:45

And then we're going to move into the subject of logical fallacies. And in the book,

07:50

Bonson identifies 15 logical fallacies. And we're going to look at each one of those so that you can learn to recognize them.

07:57

And then if we have time, I put five extras that some are my favorites that Bonson doesn't cover.

08:06

All right, tension one, one's ethical perspective. In other words, his view of right and wrong. Let's take just as an example, someone holds to a hedonistic lifestyle.

08:17

What is a hedonistic lifestyle? That pleasure is the highest value. You've seen this in a beer commercial.

08:24

You only go around once in this life, so grab all the gusto you can get. That's hedonism.

08:31

In other words, it doesn't matter what I do. It's not a question of right or wrong. It's whatever makes me happy.

08:38

If somebody has that viewpoint, and then they're appalled by an official taking a bribe, there's a tension there.

08:48

There's a contradiction there. What do you see the contradiction as? This is going to be audience participation.

08:55

Well, the official taking a bribe is pleasing himself. That's exactly right. Perhaps taking a bribe gives the man pleasure.

09:02

So who are you to say that it's wrong for him to take bribes, when your viewpoint is, if it feels good, do it?

09:12

Did you have a comment? OK. I think one of the greatest examples we see with this is when people make the abortion argument in cases of rape, where they assign victimhood to one of the parties, but then suggest that there's exoneration to then do wrong.

09:33

Yeah. Yep. And that's exactly what we're looking for. So that's the first tension.

09:40

Second tension is one's epistemological perspective. In other words, his source of knowledge.

09:48

You've heard this a lot. Someone ridicules your Christian faith, saying, seeing is believing.

09:54

All right. Seeing is believing. When questioned about his own faith, when you start talking to him, he bases his opinion on the works of others, textbooks, research papers, and ancient philosophers.

10:10

So where do you go with that? Well, that's a wide open door for you, saying, wait a minute. You're not living by what your own standard of knowledge is, because you haven't seen this.

10:22

You've heard this from others. So there you have him at contradiction to his own philosophy.

10:30

You see where it's going? So first we saw it in ethics, now in epistemology.

10:39

What's the tension? Obviously, his opinion is not based on seeing and believing, even though that's what he says.

10:44

So he says one thing, but he believes another. Tension within one's metaphysical perspective.

10:55

That's his nature of reality. An example. A college professor teaches a behaviorist view of man.

11:03

What that means is that he argues free will is an illusion. Man's actions are merely a response to stimulus, and thus predictable.

11:13

And the individual is not really making the choices. All right. He's just doing what his synapses, when they're firing, tell him to do.

11:26

In any given circumstance. This is a big one on the college campuses, by the way.

11:32

All right. Now, one of his students is caught cheating on a test.

11:40

He's indignant and fails the student. Where's the tension? He has no right to be indignant, because according to his world view, the person is not responsible.

11:57

He's just acting out what his own biochemical signals are telling him to do.

12:06

So you can see how on each one of these levels, if you ask the right questions and put them into a certain situation, you come down to you see the tension between it and outright contradictions.

12:20

There's one last one showing the difference between the two. Tension between one's epistemology and one's metaphysics.

12:28

Someone holds the view that there's no spiritual realm. Physical world is all there is to reality. How many have come across that?

12:36

I mean, everybody should have at some point. This is another very common one.

12:42

He asserts that the Christian world view is false, because it contains logical contradictions.

12:49

For example, God can't be three in one. He can't have three persons in one.

12:54

So he says that's a logical fallacy. Why is he no grounds to say that?

13:02

What's the tension here? Ryan? He has no basis for logic.

13:08

Exactly. His world view cannot account for logic, since logic is immaterial. It's not part of the physical world.

13:18

You getting an idea at the tools that Bonson is giving us? All right.

13:24

So that's just a smattering of the tension. Any view that the humanist wants to take, you can come up with something exactly the same if you know how to do it.

13:39

So next, logical fallacies. And we're going to spend the rest of the time on this.

13:48

This, again, is Bonson speaking. He says, we've just mentioned the laws of logic and how materialism would preclude them.

13:58

Because the laws of logic are so important to argumentation and reasoning, precisely what apologetics is all about, as we said before, we should pause to familiarize ourselves with some of the most common of those guidelines for reasoning.

14:14

An effective defense of the faith will call for skillful use of logic in meeting the challenge of unbelievers and refuting their arguments, as well as in doing an internal critique of the unbeliever's own basic outlook.

14:30

OK? Basically what he's saying, the best way to put holes into your opponent's thinking is to show that he can't be consistent in logic, and there are recognized logical fallacies that you can point out, which they might even know them, they might even try to use them, but they commit them all the time.

14:55

So we're going to look at three separate categories of logical fallacies. First one is resting a conclusion upon an appeal to popular sentiment.

15:09

So I'll give you somewhat of an idea. This book must truly be great.

15:15

It's on the bestseller list. What's the fallacy? That the majority of people know a good book.

15:24

That the majority of people can read. No, I mean, no. Because the book is on the bestseller list, does that mean it's great literature?

15:36

In fact, how much great literature actually finds itself onto the bestseller list? But that's an appealing to the public.

15:43

If most people think it's great, then it must be great. That's a logical fallacy.

15:51

Got it? The Nazis were the majority. They were good. Yeah. Now again, this is just one example.

15:59

I mean, you can take this and put it in any of the realms. Second one, resting a conclusion upon an appeal to emotion.

16:10

Pity, fear, any emotion. That man on trial must be innocent.

16:18

He suffered so much. This is exactly what defense attorneys try to do, show how the defendant is the victim and how he has suffered.

16:33

No? Oh. Oh, OK. All right, you get the idea? So it's an appeal to emotion.

16:40

If you can win the emotion of the person, they're overlooking the logic. But that is, in fact, a logical fallacy.

16:51

Third, resting a conclusion upon an appeal against or in favor of the person, authority, circumstances, or history of someone advancing a particular thesis.

17:03

Bonson gets very wordy in these. Some of these even have names, which I'll point out as we go.

17:10

Bertrand Russell said, there is no God. Therefore, there is no God. You will see this type of an argument all the time or frequently from your opponents of setting somebody up.

17:25

But what's the presupposition here? Yeah, that Bertrand Russell knows.

17:31

And he's an authority and is worthy to be listened to. That's the presupposition.

17:37

How do you refute this? Well, you can't just say he's not.

17:50

That's doing his thing. I mean, you start off, ask the questions.

17:56

What makes him worthy to be listened to? What makes his opinion any better than my opinion or anybody else's opinion?

18:04

So you start asking questions along those lines to tear down the fact that because there is a legitimate appeal to authority.

18:13

So there's a thing called a tactic called just the facts. So I would ask the person,

18:19

OK, so Bertrand Russell says there is no God. What are the facts? What are the facts that he's putting forth that prove that there is no

18:27

God? Take him out of the picture. What are the facts? Mm -hmm. Excellent. OK.

18:38

Fourth, resting a conclusion upon an appeal to premises which prove, if anything, something altogether.

18:46

And this is one of my favorites. And I've told a story about Walter Martin on the radio.

18:53

But the fact that the tomb

18:58

Jesus was put into was found empty proves Christianity is false. You get it?

19:08

There's actually a group of people who think that because there's no seed, like the

19:13

Muslims, for example, they know where Muhammad is buried. And they're quick to point that out.

19:24

Everybody know who Walter Martin is? Walter Martin was an apologist of the mid -20th century, very famous.

19:33

He's a predecessor for guys like James White. He was the original

19:39

Bible Answer Man. That's right, yeah. He's the original Bible Answer Man. He was on a late night talk show on radio called

19:47

The Long John Neville Show. And he was debating a Muslim on the air.

19:53

And they were going back and forth, back and forth. And Walter always did an excellent job.

20:01

And he kind of backed the guy into a corner. And the guy, the Muslim, came out.

20:07

And he says, wait a minute. He says, you know what, there's more proof for Islam than there is for Christianity.

20:13

He says, in Islam, we've got Mecca. We've got the tomb of Muhammad. All you've got is an empty. And he stopped mid -sentence.

20:22

And Walter jumped in. That's right. All we have is an empty tomb. And he said, well, let's go to a break.

20:29

Let's cut it. And the guy never came back on the air. The empty tomb, far from disproving

20:35

Christianity, is one of the proofs you can put forth, just the facts.

20:43

OK, so that's four. Number five, resting a conclusion upon an appeal to the absence or ignorance of premises proving the contrary.

20:56

UFOs must be alien spaceships. The government has never offered any other satisfactory explanation.

21:05

Obviously, some of these are hyperbolic in nature. But that's intentional to prove the point.

21:16

What's the fallacy? That the government's the other argument.

21:23

That the government is our source of knowledge. Yeah. And just because nobody's come up with an alternative view doesn't mean that this one is false, or that this one is true,

21:38

I should say. OK? So now, this is

21:46

Bonson speaking again. In each of the preceding kinds of fallacious reasoning, the truth of the premise or premises used in an argument is irrelevant to the truth of the proposed conclusion.

21:58

There's a disconnect. The first premise, the premise that you're basing it on, is irrelevant.

22:04

It's not proving anything of the conclusion. The conclusion is unwarranted. OK? Even granting the premise, the conclusion need not follow.

22:17

Consequently, such lines of thinking are unreliable. Oh, by the way, too, one of the principles of logic is the conclusion may be true, but the method of getting there is fallacious.

22:32

So it doesn't matter if it's true or not. The point is, if you use one of these logical fallacies, even though your ultimate conclusion is true, you're going to come up with egg on your face if your methodology of getting there is not logical.

22:50

Follow? OK. In other forms of fallacious reasoning, in 6 to 10 we're going to be looking at, the truth of the conclusion does not reliably follow from the premise because of ambiguous or confused thinking.

23:09

So we've got five more to look at. Resting a conclusion upon an appeal to a premise or premises where terms are not being used in the same sense, where questions of grammar or emphasis render the sense of thus truth of the premise uncertain.

23:28

All right, notice what it's saying. The one I've picked out is kind of a change in the grammar.

23:36

The only rational being is man. OK, now I'm going to stand back when

23:42

I get. Women are not men. This explains why women are so irrational.

23:49

I couldn't resist.

24:06

What's the fallacy here? What's the fallacy?

24:14

It's an easy one to point out, but specifically in the syllogism.

24:24

Yes. Women are included in the term man. All right, so the whole thing is fallacious.

24:32

And this happens to be one where the conclusion is false. Did I save that?

24:41

Am I OK? See, I could do that because my wife's not here.

24:51

Number seven, resting a conclusion upon an appeal to a premise which is merely the restatement of the conclusion or takes the conclusion for granted.

25:01

See if you can follow this one. Water is wet. Therefore, water is wet.

25:09

Circular reason. Yes. OK, that's kind of one of the easier ones.

25:19

Number eight is resting a conclusion upon appeal to a premise which is stated in an overly general fashion, which is not recognized important qualifications, or which is known to be true only in a limited number or atypical set of cases.

25:36

All right, here's OK. The Knicks are a great basketball team. Therefore, each member of the team must be great.

25:50

It doesn't follow. Just because you have a great team, it doesn't mean that every individual is a great player.

25:56

Is that called fallacy of composition? Yes. Yes, it is.

26:05

Number nine, resting a conclusion upon appeal to a premise or premises in such a way as to confuse the attributes of parts or something with the attributes of the parts of something with the attributes of the whole.

26:20

This is called the fallacy of division. The other was composition.

26:26

They're kind of like the opposites. Sodium, chemical symbol

26:31

Na, is poison. Chlorine, chemical symbol

26:36

Cl, is poison. Therefore, sodium chloride, which is table salt, is poison. You see the fallacy.

26:48

Just because the parts are something doesn't mean that when they're put together as a whole that they're something.

26:54

And there's another one. Number 10, all the parts of a

27:00

Boeing 747 are made as light as possible. Therefore, a 747 must be extremely light.

27:10

Is that true? No. OK. Number 10, resting a conclusion upon appeal to a premise or premises in such a way as to confuse the casual and temporal connections between events.

27:28

Confuse different kinds of causation or overlook the complexity of causes for something.

27:35

Here's an example. The American War for Independence happened after the Renaissance.

27:41

Therefore, the Renaissance was the cause of the war. See the fallacy.

27:51

Just because something, there's a name for that post, post, post,

28:00

I can't remember it. It's Latin. OK. Post, hop, that's it.

28:09

Good. Finally, there are kinds of informal fallacies in reasoning, which are going to be number 11 of 15, which betray either an unfairness of mind and method in the person proposing the argument in question or a distortion of the facts.

28:33

Number 11, resting a conclusion upon someone's inability to offer a single, simple, or clear answer to a complex question, raising more than one issue, a trick question emotionally loaded or a misleading question, creating a false impression or diverting attention from the specific issue.

28:53

When did you stop beating your wife? What's the fallacy?

29:06

And you can't just answer that with a dime or a date, right?

29:12

When did you stop beating your wife? Number 12, resting a conclusion upon a forced choice between two alternatives, which are erroneously presented as the only options.

29:26

This is called the false middle. You didn't finish your homework yet?

29:35

You must either be lazy or stupid. But there are alternatives.

29:49

Resting a conclusion upon a line of reasoning which evidences the use of double standard or special pleading.

29:57

The first grade class averages score of 90 on their math test. The senior class averages score of 85 on their math test.

30:05

Therefore, the first grade class is smarter than the seniors. You see, it's double standard or special.

30:19

14, resting a conclusion upon an erroneous comparison between two things which do not resemble each other but in irrelevant or insignificant ways, like apples and oranges.

30:34

Dogs have tails and feet. Cats have tails and feet. Therefore, dogs are equivalent to cats.

30:48

15, resting a conclusion upon the mistake of treating concrete attributes or a series of particular events as though they were an entity in themselves, metaphorical hypostatistation or abstraction.

31:05

Justice demands a guilty verdict in that trial. What's wrong with that?

31:14

It's a trial. Justice is going to be the outworking to find out if he's guilty.

31:21

There's an assumption of guilt there. Yeah, I'm not sure, but what's the basic underlying principle?

31:31

Justice is an abstract and can't demand anything. You can say the

31:36

Constitution demands. We can say the evidence. Well, not even that would be an abstract,

31:47

OK? I have time for questions. However, I think we do have time.

31:55

I have five that are not in the book. It's called the ad baculum fallacy, which is

32:05

Latin for the stick. In other words, there's a veiled threat. If you don't vote for Senator Snout Snuffle, the ozone layer will be destroyed in six months, and we will all die, obviously.

32:23

Is that true? But it's a veiled threat. It's a logical fallacy.

32:29

This one you'll hear all the time in political debates. Yes, it's the most important election in the history of mankind.

32:44

The ad hominem fallacy, we should all be familiar with that, to the man. We know that you have stated the sun rises in the east every morning, but we know you're a jerk, just pointing it to the man.

32:59

If you're ever the victim of an ad hominem fallacy, don't despair, because nine times out of 10, if you're the victim of it, it means you got him on the run when they turn to ad hominem, when they try to discredit you.

33:19

The two croquet fallacy, which basically is, yeah, well, you too. Don't tell me

33:26

I can't smuggle cocaine. You do too. You do it too. Chronological snobbery.

33:39

Categorical logic may have worked for Aristotle, but it's outdated now. This is funny.

33:46

This is one of those fallacies that can work two ways.

33:53

Sometimes the appeal to the old, everything old is better. And other times it's, well, no, that's outdated.

34:01

The new is better. And you'll see the snobbery go either way. You see this in the church.

34:12

Only now can the book of the Revelation be fulfilled. OK. Anyway, a priorism fallacy, which is a hasty generalization.

34:26

I tried to talk to the new boy, Tommy, yesterday, and he stuck his tongue out at me. Boys are so mean.

34:35

Hasty generalization. That's it. Questions?