Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88

    LOGICAL FALLACIES

    Following are two sites with comprehensive lists of logical fallacies:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...dex.html#index

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

    Logical Fallacies

    An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning

    The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.
    What is a Logical Fallacy?

    A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above.
    Formal and Informal Fallacies

    There are several different ways in which fallacies may be categorised. It’s possible, for instance, to distinguish between formal fallacies and informal fallacies.
    Formal Fallacies (Deductive Fallacies)

    Philosophers distinguish between two types of argument: deductive and inductive. For each type of argument, there is a different understanding of what counts as a fallacy.
    Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a good one (to be “valid”) it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion.
    The classic example of a deductively valid argument is:
    (1) All men are mortal.
    (2) Socrates is a man.
    Therefore:
    (3) Socrates is mortal.
    It is simply not possible that both (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false, so this argument is deductively valid.
    Any deductive argument that fails to meet this (very high) standard commits a logical error, and so, technically, is fallacious. This includes many arguments that we would usually accept as good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly probable, but not certain. Arguments of this kind, arguments that aren’t deductively valid, are said to commit a “formal fallacy”.
    Informal Fallacies

    Inductive arguments needn’t be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good arguments. Good inductive arguments lend support to their conclusions, but even if their premises are true then that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true. Even a good inductive argument with true premises might have a false conclusion; that the argument is a good one and that its premises are true only establishes that its conclusion is probably true.
    All inductive arguments, even good ones, are therefore deductively invalid, and so “fallacious” in the strictest sense. The premises of an inductive argument do not, and are not intended to, entail the truth of the argument’s conclusion, and so even the best inductive argument falls short of deductive validity.
    Because all inductive arguments are technically invalid, different terminology is needed to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments than is used to distinguish good and bad deductive arguments (else every inductive argument would be given the bad label: “invalid”). The terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are “strong” and “weak”.
    An example of a strong inductive argument would be:
    (1) Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
    Therefore:
    (2) The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.
    Arguments that fail to meet the standards required of inductive arguments commit fallacies in addition to formal fallacies. It is these “informal fallacies” that are most often described by guides to good thinking, and that are the primary concern of most critical thinking courses and of this site.
    Logical and Factual Errors

    Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, i.e. inferences where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious. What is less clear is whether arguments containing false premises but which are otherwise fine should be called fallacious.
    If a fallacy is an error of reasoning, then strictly speaking such arguments are not fallacious; their reasoning, their logic, is sound. However, many of the traditional fallacies are of just this kind. It’s therefore best to define fallacy in a way that includes them; this site will therefore use the word fallacy in a broad sense, including both formal and informal fallacies, and both logical and factual errors.
    Taxonomy of Fallacies

    Once it has been decided what is to count as a logical fallacy, the question remains as to how the various fallacies are to be categorised. The most common classification of fallacies groups fallacies of relevance, of ambiguity, and of presumption.
    Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance rely on premises that aren’t relevant to the truth of the conclusion. The various irrelevant appeals are all fallacies of relevance, as are ad hominems.
    Arguments that commit fallacies of ambiguity, such as equivocation or the straw manfallacy, manipulate language in misleading ways.
    Arguments that commit fallacies of presumption contain false premises, and so fail to establish their conclusion. For example, arguments based on a false dilemma orcircular arguments both commit fallacies of presumption.
    These categories have to be treated quite loosely. Some fallacies are difficult to place in any category; others belong in two or three. The ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy, for example, could be classified either as a fallacy of ambiguity (an attempt to switch definitions of “Scotsman”) or as a fallacy of presumption (it begs the question, reinterpreting the evidence to fit its conclusion rather than forming its conclusion on the basis of the evidence).
    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564

    Is equivocation a fallacy?

    Hello Mark

    I have also considered this matter of fallacies, hence the '38 Crooked ways To Win An Argument', which I have often referred to in posts. I found another website with the title; 'What is your fallacy?' In that, there are 24 different fallacies listed. I now notice you have given the url to that website.

    In both sets of documents, I have not come across "equivocation" as a fallacy. This is what Richard says is a fallacy;
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your new formulation of your argument is a travesty of ambiguity, especially in light of your own words over the last year. You now say "I have agreed to the following sentence; God's will is done in Heaven and angels can sin." That's totally insane. You are deliberately EQUIVOCATING on the word "angels" which could mean either human messengers or divine agents. Equivocation is one of the most obvious and elementary LOGICAL FALLACIES!
    dictionary.com

    equivocate

    verb (used without object), equivocated, equivocating.
    1. to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge:
    When asked directly for his position on disarmament, the candidate only equivocated.
    I have not equivocated on the meaning of Angels and angels. I have made the distinction, and the distinction is necessary to avoid what looks like a paradox. Richard says there is no paradox and lamely tries to explain it away or sticks with words at face value, which are figurative and makes no attempt to understand the figurative language.

    Richard is the one who I have said has used ambiguous statements in his use of The 'Law of Non-Contradiction'. Richard has done nothing to define the terms he is using. This is another case of Richard making up his own rules or twisting the conversation to prove his point.

    Would you like to challenge Richard on the use of "equivocation" as a fallacy? Once again, Richard does not stick to what he teaches. He quotes Voltaire, who says; “If you want to converse with me, first define your terms.”

    Here is a comment taken from a website on this quote;
    http://liamscheff.com/2007/08/voltai...he-scientists/
    I take it to mean, “If you want to debate me, first we must define the terms of our argument or there can be no meaningful debate.”

    And this is advice I always take. There can be no discussion of any real merit, in my opinion, without reducing the ideas in question to their simplest, least-divisible form, for the purpose of absolute clarity, distinction, and for the most accurate transmission of meaning.

    This process – the definition of terms – is, of course, not done, never done, always undone.
    Yet another twist brought up by Richard in the long-running argument about the paradox of God's Angels sinning and God's will being done in Heaven. The understanding of what God's Angels are, and who the "angels" of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 5,6 are, is the cause of what looks like a paradox. Mix the two up and there appears to be a paradox. The paradox is solved by understanding that "Angels" and "angels" are not the same; the latter is human. If that is not the case, then there is no paradox and Angels sin, which is what Richard says; "the Bible teaches", but that leads to immortal sinners in the Kingdom of God, which cannot be right.Immortality is what it is and cannot be less. Once bestowed, immortality is not taken away. If immortality can be taken away, it is wrong to say that the person/Angel was immortal in the first place.

    Jesus was not immortal until he was raised to life and had immortality bestowed upon him. Jesus is the only man to have gained immortality having been raised from the dead. Jesus could not die if he was immortal to begin with. Only God cannot die and as I read recently in Deuteronomy chapter 32, God says; I live for ever The converse of that must mean, God does not die and cannot die.

    All the best
    David





    All the best
    David

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I have not equivocated on the meaning of Angels and angels. I have made the distinction, and the distinction is necessary to avoid what looks like a paradox. Richard says there is no paradox and lamely tries to explain it away or sticks with words at face value, which are figurative and makes no attempt to understand the figurative language.

    Richard is the one who I have said has used ambiguous statements in his use of The 'Law of Non-Contradiction'. Richard has done nothing to define the terms he is using. This is another case of Richard making up his own rules or twisting the conversation to prove his point.
    This is the root of your confusion David. I have explained it many times and you have never responded rationally. If you define "angels" as human messengers and "Angels" as "God's Angels" then there is NO PARADOX if you read Peter as saying "angels sinned" rather than "Angels sinned." I have understood this perfectly and completely from the beginning over two years ago. This has never been issue. I have explicitly explained it to you many times, and you simply ignored what I wrote and then repeated your errors.

    I explained this way back in April of 2013 in post #77 of the Can God's Angels in Heaven be trusted? thread. Here is what I wrote:

    ====== FROM POST #77 =========================

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Now consider what Richard has been saying to me;

    P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.
    Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin.

    Richard is asking me to decide which of these two statements is true (which means one statement has to be false). From when Richard introduced the phrase; "yet angels could sin" I have disagreed with him. My only mistake at the first was to concentrate on the first word of the phrase; "yet", when subsequently I have always objected to the whole phrase which follows the word. I refuse to agree with Richard's line of reasoning and logic by his use of this phrase. Richard accuses me of replying in "Gibberish" and in the context of applying logical expressions and the use of Richard's phrase, I accuse Richard of "twisting words" and introducing man-made ideas.

    The only way I can agree with Richard is if we agree the definition of the word "angels". In the context of "angels" being human, I can agree with Richard's statement, but because I know Richard understands "angels" in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 to be "God's Angels", this is why I understand his phrase to mean; "yet God's Angels can sin" and this I do not accept. I am not going to be drawn into agreeing a logical expression in which there is ambiguity. I have replied to Richard even quoting Wikipedia on this very point of problems with logical expressions;

    I would like someone who is reading this thread (besides Richard) to add their comment and add anything which will help Richard and me reslove the impasse we have.

    David
    You said that you could agree with my statement if by "angels" I meant human messengers. Let's try that out:

    P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet human messengers could sin.
    Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet humans messengers could sin.

    Is P true? Would there be a paradox if human messengers could sin? No.
    Is Not P true? Yes.

    Great. The law of non-contradiction makes perfect sense in this case.

    Now suppose that angels = God's Holy Angels.

    P: There is a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet God's Holy Angels could sin.
    Not P: There is NOT a paradox if we say God's will is done in heaven and yet God's Holy Angels could sin.

    Let's start with Not P. Is there a paradox if God's Holy Angels do not sin? No! No paradox at all.

    Now lets try P: Is there a paradox if God's Holy Angels could sin! YES YES YES!!! That would contradict the idea that God's will is done in heaven! There would be a paradox! That's your entire argument in a nutshell David. Here, let me remind you how you expressed it yourself in your OP of the thread God's will is done in heaven:
    What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved. Explaining Jude 6 or 2 Peter 2:4 to show that the angles referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven removes the paradox. The same can be done for any passage in the Bible which implies God’s Angels in Heaven can sin.
    Now look closely at what you wrote. What is the paradox that you said "must be resolved"? That's very simple. All you are saying is that there would be a paradox IF God's will was done in heaven and yet God's will was NOT done in heaven because God's Angels sinned. The logic of your argument is perfectly clear and straightforward. I see no ambiguity at all.

    Therefore, your paradox exists ONLY IF "angels" = "God's Holy Angels in heaven." That's the paradox that you said "must be resolved."

    Now that we see that your paradox exists, we have reason to try to find a resolution, since no paradox can be true.

    Now look at your solution to this paradox. You said that the only way to resolve this paradox is to assume that the "angels that sinned" were not God's Angels. Again, the logic is perfectly clear. That would resolve the paradox.

    This is why your rejection of your own paradox makes no sense. In order for a paradox to be resolved, it must exist. That's why you formed it in the first place. You said there would be a paradox that would have to be resolved if God's will is done in heaven and yet angels could sin. You used this to prove that the words "angels" could not refer to "God's angels." That is your argument David.

    Therefore, I trust you now will agree that my initial formulation of your paradox - which you have been rejecting for eight months - was as perfect and precise as any logical statement could ever be. It is logically identical to your own formulation of your own paradox:
    David's own words: We have a paradox when God's will is done in Heaven IF God's Angels sin in Heaven.
    Please write something that shows you understand.

    All the very best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •