An Illicit Process

An Illicit Process

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Preface

This review was originally published 20170501, revised 20250430 for Blogger and an entry on academia.edu.

Illicit Process

Pirie documents that this fallacy uses unsupported claims, unsupported premises. (131). A reasonable conclusion cannot be drawn in regard to a whole class, without some knowledge about what applies to all in this class. (131).

For example:

To state as conclusion that all Christians are fundamentalists without reasonably demonstrating this in a premise or premises, is fallacious.

Pirie cited:

'Some Australians are pleasant fellows, and some con-men are not pleasant fellows, so some Australians are not conmen.' (132).

Pirie writes that this might be true, but cannot be proven by this argument. (132).

As a premise it might be true that some Australians are pleasant fellows.

As a premise it might be true that some con-men are not pleasant fellows.

There is not enough significant evidence and significant reason to demonstrate that some Australians are not con-men as conclusion. It may be asserted and assumed on 'the street', but is not an academic factual argument.

Fallacy files

Referenced from Fallacy Files See also: Irving Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic (Tenth Edition) (Prentice Hall, 1998), pp. 276-7.

'Any form of categorical syllogism in which a term that is distributed in the conclusion is undistributed in a premiss.' (premise, my correction).

Merriam-Webster 

Cited

'illicit process noun : a fallacy of distribution in which a term is distributed in a conclusion that has not been distributed in the premises' 

(End citation)

Note therefore a valid deductive argument can have: False premises and a true conclusion (FT) False premises and a false conclusion (FF) True premises and a true conclusion (TT) However... True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid. 

---

Thomism.org 

Cited 

'Definition: The Illicit Process fallacy is committed when a term in a syllogism is distributed in the conclusion but not distributed in a premise.'

(End citation)

Within logic, distribution is defined as to whether a term in a proposition is applied to all members of its class or only to some members.

'Illicit Major 

Definition: The Illicit Major fallacy is committed when the major term in a syllogism (the term that appears as the predicate of the conclusion and in one of the premises) is distributed in the conclusion but not in its premise.' 

'Examples: Some machines are not old. Some microwaves are old. Therefore, some microwaves are not machines.' 

Meta AI explains this more clearly:

Cited

'In the first example: Some machines are not old. Some microwaves are old. Therefore, some microwaves are not machines. The term "machines" is the predicate of the conclusion (some microwaves are not machines) and also appears in the first premise. So, "machines" is the major term. The issue is that "machines" is distributed in the conclusion (as it's negated universally for some microwaves in relation to all machines) but not in the premise (where it's only mentioned that some machines are not old, not all). This illustrates the Illicit Major fallacy.'

(End citation)

Machines is not distributed in the premise as all are not old. Some are old, some are not.

'Illicit Minor 

Definition: The Illicit Minor fallacy is committed when the minor term in a syllogism (the term that appears as the subject of the conclusion and in one of the premises) is distributed in the conclusion but not in its premise.' 

'Examples: All skyscrapers are tall. Some buildings are skyscrapers. Therefore, all buildings are tall.'

Meta AI explains this more clearly:

Cited

'In the second example: All skyscrapers are tall. Some buildings are skyscrapers. Therefore, all buildings are tall. The term "tall" is the predicate of the conclusion (all buildings are tall) and also appears in the first premise. However, for the Illicit Minor example, we're looking at the minor term, which is the subject of the conclusion and appears in one of the premises. In this case, the minor term is "buildings," which appears in the conclusion and the second premise. The issue is that "buildings" is distributed in the conclusion (all buildings are tall) but not in the premise (some buildings are skyscrapers), illustrating the Illicit Minor fallacy.' 

(End citation)

Not all buildings are tall. Not all buildings are skyscrapers. Not distributed in the premise.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy). 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

It is not my business

It is not my business 

My walk home (2017), Lunapic Vincent van Gogh version

University of Wales, Trinity Saint David (2009), PhD Viva for Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010).

Paraphrased:

External Reviewer: 'What do you have to say to those people that are suffering under the problem of evil, and yet do not believe in Jesus Christ and are not are chosen by God under your Reformed system?'

Me: 'As a human being that suffers under the problem of evil, I can relate to human suffering. But, it is not my business which person God chooses in Jesus Christ, and which person God does not, in regard to everlasting life. (Ephesians 1-2, Romans 1-10)'.'That is between the person and God.' 

---

Now of course, as a biblical Christian, I do witness and evangelize, but my Viva point stands.  

From PhD text 

Within Reformed theology, regeneration is viewed as an initial one time act of the Holy Spirit in a person,[1] and a person is therefore understood to be converted and therefore able to freely believe.[2] My view is that it is indeed God’s choice alone to regenerate and therefore he alone is active in regeneration,[3] but simultaneously as a person is regenerated they believe in Christ. Therefore although I view God as the initiator of regeneration I reason that logically, in order to avoid any suggestion of force or coercion,[4] as God regenerates the saved person, he or she simultaneously believes.[5] There is ‘no compulsion of the will in regeneration.’ states Shedd.[6] Calvin reasons that a person is not forced or coerced to believe in the gospel.[7] I would view conversion as taking place simultaneously with regeneration in a person, although again I state that God alone via the Holy Spirit causes the regeneration process.[8] This means as God chooses to regenerate a person he simultaneously persuades one to freely believe.[9] Murray states that regeneration is logically antecedent to any conscious response,[10] and I reason that God’s choice to commit the act of regeneration must be antecedent due to the corrupt and sinful nature of persons.[11]  The work of salvation was confined to God’s part in the calling.[12] This does not prohibit God from causing a compatibilistic human choice within conversion at the moment that God’s initial eternal choice to regenerate[13] becomes a divine act of regeneration.[14] As persons were regenerated they would hear the call of salvation, repent and believe in Christ.[15] I would view conversion as an aspect of regeneration, which is the beginning of the Christian experience.[16] Regeneration was to encompass the entire divine plan of recreation from the initial change in persons to the ultimate culmination of a new heaven and new earth.[17]

 ________________________________________

[1] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172). Erickson (1994: 249).

[2] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172). 

[3] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172). I agree with Murray on this point.

[4] Compatibilism allows for limited but significant human freedom. Kierkegaard suggests that Christianity is a religion of freedom and Christians are convinced to voluntarily give up all contrary to Christ. Kierkegaard (1847-1848)(1955)(1966: 186). The term convinced is a good one and I reason this is a work of the Holy Spirit.

[5] This is my compatibilist theory which is in line with that of Feinberg and which will be discussed later in this Chapter.

[6] Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 136-137 Volume 2). 

[7] Calvin (1543)(1996: 68). 

[8] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).

[9] This allows for a limited but significant human freedom within the salvation process that is not incompatibilism. Salvation remains alone a work of God. Weber writes that God with his freedom effects both human freedom and human bondage as he reaches out to a saved person through the Word of God.  Weber (1955)(1981: 245). This would be a work of the Spirit.

[10] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 172).

[11] Murray (1937-1966)(1977: 168-169).

[12] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

[13] As God is eternal this choice could be viewed as such. Humans of course are not eternal.

[14] Persons have via the Holy Spirit been molded and transformed in order to freely believe. Thiessen, an incompatibilist, states that in regeneration the human is passive and is active in conversion. Thiessen (1956: 367).  I agree concerning regeneration, and I can agree in regard to conversion, only if by active the human being is convinced freely via the Holy Spirit and is not assumed to have incompatibilist free will.

[15] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

[16] Franke notes that the Scripture explains that the Holy Spirit continued to guide the earliest Christians.  Franke (2005: 132). The Spirit continues to work in regenerated/converted believers that embrace the gospel.

[17] Bavinck (1918)(2006: 53).

---

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?  Grand Rapids, Zondervan.  

FRANCE, R.T. (2001) Matthew, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans. 

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847-1848)(1955)(1966)  On Authority and Revelation, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, Incorporated. 

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1848-1849)(1961)  Christian Discourses & The Lilies of the Field and The Birds of the Air & Three Discourses at The Communion on Fridays, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Oxford University Press.  

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2:  Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

MURRAY, RUSSELL NORMAN (2003) The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives, Bangor, The University of Bangor, Wales. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,  Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.  

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,  Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.   

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

20170430 Blogger article slightly revised for an entry on academia.edu, 20241228.

In Three Minutes: No Commentaries Needed?

@fineartamerica Twitter.

Erickson is useful here. The Bible in context and other good sources need to be used. In other words, commentaries and tools are required for contextual understanding and modern, reasonable interpretations. A key concept presented is not to review biblical texts in isolation! This is a significant danger with bible studies that do not use tools.

Imagine sermons prepared without the use of tools. A ridiculous guessing game at many points by the preacher.

Baptist, Millard J. Erickson (1994) comments that doctrines need not be maintained precisely with the same form of expression that they were in Biblical times. Erickson (1994: 37). Erickson also points out that not all other sources of knowledge and truth need to be excluded from Christian teaching. Erickson’s point that God’s word, although an unchanging message must be interpreted for each era. Erickson (1994: 37).  

This in no way allows for an overhaul of major, traditional Christian doctrines from traditional and Reformed perspectives, but with the use of practical and empirical approaches there would be opportunities to understand Christian theology in modern terms. He explains that systematic theology draws upon the entire Bible and does not exegete texts in isolation. Erickson (1994: 21). It attempts to analyze and understand Scriptural teachings in a harmonized way. 

Erickson makes it clear that Biblical doctrines may not necessarily be maintained precisely with the same form of expression as they were in Biblical times, and notes philosophical truth can be found from other sources. Erickson (1994: 37). Biblical doctrines do not theologically change, but how they are expressed in a cultural context, may.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

Ignoratio elenchi: Arguing the wrong thing

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Ignoratio elenchi

An ancient fallacy identified by Aristotle. (128). When one attempts to argue something, but instead succeeds in arguing something else. (128).

Philosophy Lander

Cited

'Ignoratio elenchi is a name used for arguments whose premisses (premises, my correction) have no direct relation on the claim at issue. In this sense of the term, almost any fallacy could be considered an instance of ignoratio elenchi .

In general, the ignoratio elenchi occurs when an argument purporting to establish a specific conclusion is directed, instead, to proving a different conclusion. This version is often termed the red herring fallacy—an irrelevant subject is interjected into the conversation to divert attention away from the main issue.'
---

Example of the Ignoratio elenchi fallacy:

The thesis that one attempts to prove via argument becomes not relevant. (128). It is a fallacy of irrelevant thesis. (128).

My example of this fallacy:

Premise 1: Montreal is a very European city, by Canadian standards.

Premise 2: Montreal has significant sport, art and culture.

Conclusion: The National Hockey League should bring back the Montreal Maroons franchise.

The premises are being used fallaciously. These would better work within an argument for Montreal as a tourist destination.

To support the return of the Montreal Maroons, reasonable premises would be such that Montreal is a large hockey market, a large television market, a traditional hockey market, a market that already has a billion dollar club present and can support another.

Hypothetically:

Montreal has a new suitable arena being build (not the case at present and so this lack is a premise against).
---

The arguer wants to demonstrate that although a man in question may have done one thing, he did not do another. (129).

Pirie provides the example (paraphrased): 'Well, John, that is not the point is it? What we have done is to...'(130).

The first point from John will be negated, while the point of the arguer will be pursued.

'Well, John, the point is not that Jesus Christ is second person of the Trinity and his atoning work and resurrection, the point is that many people in this secularized, scientific Western world today, do not have any concern for Christianity or religion!'

But in reality, the primary point that John is making is that the work of Christ is God's Biblical answer to and for any everlasting life for humanity. The existence of secular thinking and science does not disprove Biblical theology. Science is a different academic discipline than is Religious Studies and different data is used to create premises and conclusions. In attempts to find truth.

The arguer does not like John's premises because they will lead to a conclusion the arguer disagrees with and so he attempts to twist John's argumentation into a more favourable conclusion.

LinkedIn