tagged: Logic, Rastis

…and other Tom foolery

Posted by Rastis in News & Culture

This is the final post in the series on logical fallacies.  The final two categories are the personal attack and miscellaneous fallacies.

The Personal Attack

I have already addressed the ad hominem and it has been pointed out that the blogosphere would not operate without it.  While that is probably true, I continue to address the various forms of personal attacks at potentially great hazard to so many “productive” conversations.  Personal attacks, in general, focus on the individual and seek to derail the pursuit of truth over questions of ethos.

• ad Baculum

Literally, “to the stick.”  It is the appeal to violence.  ”do things my way, or someone will get hurt.”

Why it works
Who wants to get beat up for their milk money?  Threats of violence, particularly when made by someone who is in the position of power and control over us, are typically compelling.

Why it is wrong
It completely skirts the logos, ethos and pathos of an argument and reduces it to “might makes right.”  Strength and power do not determine truth and validity.  It is particularly unfortunate when the brethren adopt such a mentality as we are biblically encouraged to work with each other in meekness, love, patience, gentleness, etc.  Ad baculum is simply not in harmony with the fruit of the Spirit.

How we perfect it
While most of the informal fallacies amount to some kind of intellectual dishonesty or logical gymnastics, this fallacy demonstrates its self in divisive and destructive means.  One only need to look to the Conservative resurgence or many of the changes at the IMB to see the destructive manner in which this fallacy has become the modus operandi for our institutions.  While I am an ardent conservative [theologically speaking], the “cease and desist or we will fire you” mentality is heartbreaking and diverts us from the mission at hand.

• Poisoning the Well

This fallacy seeks to stop rebuttals or future considerations by cutting them off at the pass via innuendo.  This is done when an opponent brings out some choice detail which will be viewed negatively.  It is like negative name dropping.

Person A “We should vote for ‘such and such’ bill”

Person B “That sounds a lot like Marxism.”

It may or may not be marxist, but what does that have to do with its truth or falsehood?  And what red white and blue American would dare now go on record in support of something which will later be lambasted as marxist?

Why it works.

We are easily diverted from the topic at hand.  We are highly devoted to controversy and conspiracy.  To imply that there  argument is either coming from the fountainhead of our opponents beliefs can easily divert the masses to overlook and not even consider what the person is saying.  After all, who wants to be one of “them” –yes, the ignominious third person plural who is at the base of everything controversial in this world!

Why it is wrong

Who cares where an idea comes from; we should be concerned with truth, not diversion.  It doesn’t matter if the progenitor of an idea is from a calvinist, arminian, barthian, contextualized, etc, camp.  The idea is either true or false.  Did he study under Pinnock, or go to SEBTS in its liberal days, or is his family a bunch of wiccans?  It has no bearing on the truth.   Why is any of that relevant?

How we perfect it

Just listen to any debate in the baptist world.  People make very subtle innuendos concerning someone’s ethos or the ethos of the group they are members in.  This is currently happening in the Islamic evangelism world over The Camel, the insider movement, and John Travis’ “C” scale.  People are trying to conflate a gross misunderstanding of those three and then trying to make it sound like anyone who use the Arabic word for God or the word “contextualization” is affirming all negative perceptions.  Some go so far as to insist that Paul did not use contextualization at all.  Their logic, and we are equivocating with that term at this point, is now trying to imply that any and all contextualization is bad because of the camp with which it is association–you know, “their camp.”

This also goes back to something I said in another post: whoever uses the labels fundamentalist or liberal first, depending on the crowd, usually wins.  It is easier to attach an idea to something which is generically suspected to be false and then sink the whole ship rather than actually inspect and examine the idea itself.

• Genetic Fallacy

Older is better.  Older is wronger.  This fallacy seeks to dismiss or approve an idea on the basis of its age. In societies where “new” and “cutting edge” are valued, we try to make the idea look archaic.  In societies where “ancient” is valued, we try to make the idea look modern and new.

Why it works

We typically are quick to affirm that which matches our perceptions or that which aligns itself with how we want the world to be.

Why it is wrong

The age of an idea does not change its truth value.  Is an old lie better than a new truth.  Is a modern, cutting edge, albeit false, argument better than ancient wisdom and truth?

How we perfect it

Ever heard “we have always done it this way”?

This one also gets used against us as well.  I had a neopagan friend tell me that paganism was true and the Bible false simply because paganism was older.  My response was that people also believed that the earth was flat and the center of the universe long before they believed it was round and rotating around the sun…  Oldest is bestest is not always the case.

The reverse is true as well.  Some people don’t like Christianity because they think it is antiquated.  It might be antiquated, but an antique truth is better than a new lie.

• Bulverism

We have C.S. Lewis to thank for this one.  The bulverism is the dismissing of an argument based on the perception that there is something wrong with the other persons motives.

Why it works

We are addicted to “dirt” and are suspicious by nature.  We are easily diverted by a well played question concerning motives.  Just watch the political commercials.

Why its wrong

What do motives have to do with truth.  This argument diverts attention off of the logos of an argument and points it to ethos.  Perhaps their motives are wrong; they might still be right.

How we perfect it

“You twist the scriptures to allow for moderation because you want to drink”

That one is my favorite…  Most of the people I personally know who are in the moderation camp do not actually drink.  They just aren’t interested in voting on it at every convention meeting or implementing an ad baculum because of it.

“You don’t practice evangelism/missions because you are a calvinist.”

This statement overlooks the historical fact that many of the missions movements were started by calvinists.  This statement also overlooks the fact that both calvinists and arminians are often lax in evangelism and it seems to have little to do with their theology.  We simply fail to obey God regardless of our motive or camp.

This fallacy gets used against us quite often.  One example I hear is that the writers of the Bible believed in miracles because they were in a pre-scientific era.  Take the virgin birth as an example.  They were so gullible to believe she was a virgin because they lacked obstetrics.  While it is true that they did not have all of the knowledge available today, they still were quite aware how babies are made which is why there was such stigma attached to being with child and out of wedlock.  The reason most of the miracles are recorded as such is not because they lacked scientific explanation.  Rather, it was because they knew how events should normally happen [though not in all of their laws of physics glory] that they were amazed to see people back from the dead, water parted, manna on the ground, etc.  All of those were outside the normal every day ["scientific"] pattern of how dead people, water and food were supposed to operate.

…And Other Tom Foolery

This is for all of those assorted fallacies.

• Red Herring

This is an attempt to distract someone from concluding their argument by interjecting distracting questions or information into the debate.  We come across this all the time in evangelism when people ask “what about the heathen who have never heard?” when we are talking about their sin.  Paul actually used this one when he brought up the resurrection so as to pit two factions against each other.  Every want to quickly change topics?  Lambaste your opponents sacred cow.  This one is particularly effective when dealing with first year seminarians who won’t stop trying to convince you that their new theological position of the week is valid.

• Equivocation

This is when someone uses a word or idea which has more than one meaning.  When called on the carpet over the negative meaning, they will insist that they meant it the other way [to the pure all things are pure] and that you are misreading it.

1. “His argument is Gay”

2. “that is inappropriate!”

3. “Well, I meant that he is happy.  You took it the wrong way”

Elitists know for glossy language use this one because they believe that you, the mere commoner, are too dumb to catch it.  It is arrogant when used like that.

• Emphatic Fallacy

The emphatic fallacy overemphasizes particular points or statements so as to interject a negative connotation to the other person’s argument.  People also do this in interpreting the scriptures.  Norm Geisler points out in his When Critics Ask cites a group that believes in wife swapping on the basis of the early church in Acts.  After all, it says they had “all things in common.”  *wink wink.*   The emphatic fallacy is the heretics best friend.

It is possible, however, in common usage, for this fallacy to naturally lead to misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and broken relationships in the blog world.  Go look at some of the debates here on SBCimpact.  Find two streams of comments, one which you think they are handling themselves politely and one where you think they are getting out of hand.  Now read the polite one with a snide voice, and the mad one with a patient voice.  The polite one now sounds malicious.  All of those “I, you your” statements take on a negative connotation when read that way.  The question is one of interpretation: what is the authorial intent?  I have been in blog/email/forum debates where it was painfully clear that they took everything I said personally and maliciously.  If read with a different tone, however, namely the one I used in writing it, the meaning changes.

I have known friends and even families who have separated over email disputes.  When read with polite tones, it was easy to see what was intended.  When read through the lenses of hurt feelings and pride, it was easy to make the other person sound like a maniac.  Some times a phone call can go a long way in conveying the tone of our comments and preserving the relationship.

• One Premise Arguments

One premise never makes an argument.  A lot of misunderstandings, and thus refutations which refute something never argued, happen when readers overlook the fact that they started the sentence with “if.”  Here is a gross example “if the Mormon understanding of Jesus is right, then the evangelical position is wrong.”  I have no problem with that statement.  It is just a hypothetical  When someone makes the second premise [at which point we formally have an argument]  that the Mormon understanding is correct, then we have a fight on our hands.

Many Bible teachers do not understand this principle.  It is, nonetheless, very important since Paul and other writers use it quite commonly.  It is important because when misinterpreted the reader thinks that the writer is arguing for the subject in question rather than against it.  An obvious example is when Paul tells the Corinthians that if they bite and devour each other they will eat each other up.  It is a one premise statement.  Since it carries a negative connotation already we are prone to catch that Paul is not arguing for infighting.  Most people get rather confused when he uses it in 1 Cor 14 talking about tongues or when the writer of Hebrews uses this device in the difficult passages in Hebrews.  Typically when Paul used this he was arguing against something not for it.

• Blinding with science

This is another tactic which appeals to our inner elitist.  It is the use of five dollar words and concepts so as to keep the other side confused and unable to answer.  Doctors use this with patients who question their judgment.  They use jargon they know the patient doesn’t understand so as to shut him up.  So how do pastors use this?  ”In the Greek it says…”  We talk about voice and mood and drag all kinds of other info which, even if we are using it correctly, is designed to confuse and silence the other side.  This does not reflect the nature of Jesus who only gave them what they were able to understand.

In all fairness, many issues are very complex.  People who are not committed to understanding the complexities and nuances should opt for the role of spectator rather than participant in many discussions.

• False Dichotomy

This is presenting as necessary a distinction or simplification when there are other reasonable and viable options.  I love the first year students who sit down at lunch and spout out “I believe in the Biblical doctrine of the Sovereignty of God.”  The problem is that he is presenting his view as the only biblical view.  Either you agree with his interpretation and are biblical, or you doubt the scriptures.  However, all of us believe that our positions are biblical.  We all affirm God’s sovereignty.  We just define it differently.

• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Literally “after this, therefore because of this.”  This fallacy draws an untenable connection between a particular even and an otherwise unrelated cause.  ’The rooster crowed therefore the sun came up.”

“My child went off to college and then he lost his faith.”  Maybe he never had faith to begin with….

“My son listened to rock music and then had lustful thoughts.”  So he is human like the rest of us?

We must be careful when drawing connections between current events and their causes [lest we sound like Pat Robertson].

• Straw Man

A timeless classic.  I rephrase your argument, interject some ridiculous nonsense of my own, and then tell you how dumb you sound.  It also occurs when people pit the strongest and best element of our argument vs the weakest and unbecoming parts of their argument.  This happens a lot in interfaith dialog!  The problem with this line of argumentation is that we only convince those who choose to agree with our conclusions.  For them we are simply affirming their presuppositions about the other side.  Take some time and read Bertrand Russell’s Why I am not a Christian. I doubt you will be ready to lay down the faith.  You will see, however, just how unconvincing a straw man is to the other side.  I wonder how many of our presentations to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Atheists come across this way.

• Slippery Slope

This is the favorite of the legalist and the moralist.   “‘X’ is wrong because it leads to ‘Y’”  If something is wrong it should be objectively wrong not just conditionally wrong.

“Moderation is wrong because it will lead to drunkenness”  By definition someone who is drunk is not moderate…  But either moderation is right or wrong on its own grounds.

“Calvinism is wrong because it will cause us to be lax in missions”   So what is our current excuse?

Coming from a very legalistic background, we heard the weirdest warnings, not the least of which was that reading a Bible translation other than the KJV would lead to immorality.  Folk religion is always quare.

• Reductio ad Absurdum

This is the reduction of an idea to the point of absurdity.  When done logically it is not a fallacy and is highly effective.  To show how someone’s beliefs logically contradict or to carry them out to their logical conclusions [I like to show evolutionists that Hitler applied evolution to anthropology and the results are sick] can be very effective.  But that is not a reductio ad absurdum.  The reductio ad absurdum rejects the conclusion to an otherwise rational argument because the individual perceives the conclusion to be unacceptable, socially inappropriate, culturally deviant, or just undesirable.

Many people reject reformed theology because they do not like the conclusions [to be fair, many reject it because of how the arm chair theologians present it...].  Reformed theology must be given a fair hearing regardless of the likability of the conclusions.  People also pick an eschatological viewpoint based more on how they like the conclusion rather than how biblically faithful the position is.

Atheists are quick to reject God not because of any rational argument but because he is not the kind of God they perceive a God who would exist ought to be like.  Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion says

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidical, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Many of the atheists I talk with reject God for that perception.  For the atheist, one must first decide if the idea of God is rational before they go picking what kind of God he ought to be.  To reject a deity on the basis of unfavorability is absurd.  Furthermore, if the God who exists is actually like Dawkins’ description, then I would be very careful not to cross

The same is true for the exclusivity of Christ.  People reject it not because they think it factually incorrect, but because they do not like the conclusion that if Jesus is the only way then there are many who will be in judgment.

In all of these examples, one must be careful not to dismiss an argument simple because the conclusion inst nice.  The fact that gravity is not often nice should never cause us to doubt its reality.

I hope this series has been helpful to your discussions.  I hope it improves the decorum of our debates as brothers.  One must always remember that no matter how convincing we are, and no matter how good our arguments are, there are still people who will not believe.  Not everyone is qualified to recognize a good argument when they see one.  Just make a really good apologetic to a high school atheist or talk about culture with someone who has barely been out of their state.  We must accept that being right does not always make us convincing…