 |
| YVR approach |
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Philosopher, Blackburn explains the many questions fallacy, of as The lawyer's fallacy, inferring or implying some type of guilt, when a person cannot provide a yes or no answer to each question. (230). It may not be possible for a factual answer to be provided to each and every question. (230).
Blackburn provides 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' (230). A yes or no answer would not suffice for someone that has never beaten his wife.
In not the identical way provided by Blackburn, a lawyer or critic could use this type of fallacious approach by insisting that truthfulness from the person being questioned requires a 100% ability to answer questions acceptably. A worldview could be challenged using a similar fallacy and then it could be concluded by the questioner to be a false worldview because, according to the questioner, each question was not adequately answered.
Infinite knowledge is not required for a (finite) person to be truthful and or for his/her worldview to be true, rather significant premises and conclusions need to be logical and reasonable and internally and externally certain. Reasonable (not 100%) certainty requiring, internally, logical and consistent, premises and conclusions and externally, premises and conclusions superior to counter arguments.
The lawyer's fallacy and my example is somewhat related to a reviewed fallacy below from 2016:
Complex Question Fallacy: Pirie review from June 4 2016
 |
| Brand new today, black blazer and black dress shoes for executive, ministry work, weddings and related. Groovy blankets courtesy my sweet Alberta Grandma. The brand new winter jacket I posted on Satire Und Theology, February 27 with a similar photo, received two large rips to seams in a downtown Toronto storm and is being fixed at the shop where I purchased the dress shoes. That winter jacket does not suffice for Ontario! It is for mild Vancouver area winters and like! |
