 |
| York scan, 1997 |
August 16, 2017 review of this fallacy in the Pirie text, edited for an entry on academia.edu on August 27, 2022.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Trivial Objections
Trivial objections leave a central thesis largely unchallenged. (199).
In other words, the major premise (s) of an argument is not reasonably, intellectually countered, but instead trivial points in objection are made. (Based on 199).
Example, (via 199):
I am opposed to the new highway system going through our beautiful town.
It will make our maps out of date.
(Maps can be changed, online and offline.)
Pirie explains this fallacy is similar to the straw man (see recent entry in archives), in that it does not counter the main premise (s) of an argument, but deals with the trivial. (199). Some trivial objections may be true, but regardless the approach is fallacious and does not deal with the core argument. (199).
Trivial Objections
Trivial objections leave a central thesis largely unchallenged. (199).
In other words, the major premise (s) of an argument is not reasonably, intellectually countered, but instead trivial points in objection are made. (Based on 199).
Example, (via 199):
I am opposed to the new highway system going through our beautiful town.
It will make our maps out of date.
(Maps can be changed, online and offline.)
Pirie explains this fallacy is similar to the straw man (see recent entry in archives), in that it does not counter the main premise (s) of an argument, but deals with the trivial. (199). Some trivial objections may be true, but regardless the approach is fallacious and does not deal with the core argument. (199).
Example:
I am unconvinced by the biblical story.
The Bible does not deal with modern scientific objections.
(The Bible is presenting compiled, well-supported by manuscripts, texts of religious history from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. It is not a science text, nor is it dealing with scientific objections of the modern or any era. A reasonable critique of the Bible must be made in the context the texts presented.)
According to Pirie, the trivial objections are designed to destroy the argument of the opposition, but they are not up to the task. It does not make the objections 'erroneous', but they are not adequate. (199).
The biblical critic reasonably should deal with the biblical story via worldview, theology and philosophy of religion considerations and not demand scientific explanations, as the bible texts are not science texts. But scientific critiques of biblical texts may or may not be sound, based on Pirie's idea that trivial objections are not necessarily erroneous.
Pirie explains that trivial objections can provide hypothetical situations in an attempt to debunk an argument. (200).
Example:
I would love to accept your invitation to discuss the importance of church membership.
But the stress might cause me to have a heart attack.
(This person does not want to be a church member)
Citing
Citing
'The problem with trivial objections is that they leave the central thesis largely untouched. It is fallacious to oppose a contention on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than giving an answer to the main claim which it makes. . . .The fallacy is akin to that of the straw man. Instead of facing the main opponent, in this case it is only a few aspects of it which are confronted. The trivial objections are possibly valid, the point is that they are also trivial, and not adequate to the work of demolishing the case which is presented. The fallacy is committed because they are not up to the task to which they are assigned, not because they are erroneous. . . . .' (End citation)
Key propositions and/or premises and conclusion, need to be properly and reasonably dealt with, as opposed to focusing on side issues.
Key issue: The person broke the law and slandered someone in public.
Side issue: The person has bad breath and should use mouthwash.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
GODFREY, NEIL (2016) 'Trivial Fallacies of a Hostile Anti-Mythicist' Vridar. https://vridar.org/2016/04/04/trivial-fallacies-of-a-hostile-anti-mythicist/
LANDER.EDU (1997-2020) Licensed under GFDL
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
MCDONALD, H.D. (1996) ‘Bible, Authority of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
MCRAY, J.R. (1996) ‘Bible, Canon of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.
