Appeal to the stone/Not appeal to the stoned

Appeal to the stone/Not appeal to the stoned

UWTSD, Lampeter campus, April 2017 Appeal to the stone/Not appeal to the stoned

Preface

Edited December 25, 2023.

Lapidem, argumentum ad

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

This entry from British, Philosopher, Madsen Pirie describes a fallacy that consists of ignoring an argument altogether and refusing to discuss its central claim. (138). Pirie uses a classic example of someone ignoring, as opposed to refuting an argument. (138).

This fallacy connects to concepts discussed within my other Pirie, and philosophical articles, such as defining premises and conclusions out of possibility, in this case by ignoring the possibility of such statements and/or arguments as reasonable. The fallacy also ties into concepts of a closed mind. 

Pirie uses an example:

'He is a friend of mine. I won't hear a word spoken against him.' (138).

This dismisses, knowledge, (138) and embraces ignorance.

Arguments are ignored because they fail to conform to existing thinking. (139). For example, argumentation is dismissed that fails to agree with modern thinking within Western society.

As this may come to the mind of the reader, I will state that an to appeal to the stone, is not the same as an appeal to the stoned; although in some cases the quality of reasoning may be comparable.

My examples of the use of this fallacy:

I won't believe in God, because I believe in science.

I don't need to study science, because I just need to read my bible.

Argumentum ad lapidem – Appeal to the stone 

Dr. Christopher B. Germann (Ph.D., M.Sc., B.Sc. / Marie Curie Alumnus)

Cited 

'Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: “appeal to the stone”) is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity. 

Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted. 

The name of this fallacy is derived from a famous incident in which Samuel Johnson claimed to disprove Bishop Berkeley‘s immaterialist philosophy (that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds) by kicking a large stone and asserting, “I refute him thus.”[3] This action, which is said to fail to prove the existence of the stone outside the ideas formed by perception, is said to fail to contradict Berkeley’s argument, and has been seen as merely dismissing it.' 

Pirie, Madsen (2006). How to win every argument: the use and abuse of logic. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 101–103. ISBN 978-0-8264-9006-3. 

Alexander, Samuel (2000). “Dr. Johnson as a Philosopher”. In Slater, John. Collected works of Samuel Alexander. 4. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-85506-853-7. 

Shatz, Itamar (2017). “The ‘Appeal to the Stone’ Fallacy: On Being Completely Dismissive in Arguments”. Effectiviology. 

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. 

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

Quaternio terminorum: The fallacy of four

Near the Fraser River, yesterday

Quaternio terminorum: The fallacy of four

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

Quaternio terminorum

This is the fallacy of four terms. (171). The standard three line argument requires that one term be repeated in the first two lines, and not be within the conclusion. (171). This is in the context of syllogistic reasoning. (171).

Common example within philosophy:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Pirie reasons that 'we cannot deduce new relationships between terms by using a middle term common to both-there isn't one.'

Blackburn explains that a syllogism is the presentation of one proposition from two premises. (368). In other words, two premises (propositions) and then a conclusion.

Logically fallacious

'Description: This fallacy occurs in a categorical syllogism when the syllogism has four terms rather than the requisite three (in a sense, it cannot be a categorical syllogism to begin with!) If it takes on this form, it is invalid.'

However, not all valid and sound argumentation holds to syllogism

University of Kentucky

From the University of Kentucky:

'argument

An Argument is a group of statements including one or more premises and one and only one conclusion. The point of an argument is to give the receiver of the argument good reason to believe new information.'

Premises are not limited, in every case.

University of Windsor 2011

Cited

'G.C. GODDU Department of Philosophy University of Richmond'

'ABSTRACT: Is it possible for an argument to have either zero premises or an infinite number of premises? I shall argue that regardless of how you conceive of arguments you should accept that an argument could have an infinite number of premises. The zero case is more complicated since the matter seems to depend not only on the metaphysics of arguments, but also the nature and function of arguing. I shall argue that at least a plausible case can be made for the possibility of zero premise arguments.'

'How many premises can an argument have?'

'If what I have argued here is correct, then everyone should accept the possibility of infinite premise arguments. On the other hand, whether we should accept zero-premise arguments seems to depend upon the resolution of other highly controversial options in argumentation theory such as—does every argument need a corresponding act of arguing? Does defining argument require an appeal to function? Trying to resolve these issues is a project for another time. At the very least, however, I hope that I have sketched out a position according to which it is straightforwardly possible for there to be zero-premise arguments.'

End citations

I can embrace the idea of many premises and one conclusion. I would present any other conclusion, within another argument. I would prefer this to the rarely used argument with more than one conclusion.

In humility, this material is more within the disciplines of classical/ancient philosophy. I am still a student in regard to fallacies. I am educated at a PhD level in philosophical theology and philosophy of religion. Philosophy of Religion is within the discipline of philosophy, as are my specialties, theodicy, the problem of evil, free will and determinism, but I worked within Religion and Theology departments in the United Kingdom. These disciplines are also under the umbrella of philosophical theology and within that the nature of God can be added as an academic specialty of mine.

I am not a classical/ancient philosopher. I have consistently claimed to only be a philosopher of religion. This also explains why I am reviewing page by page the philosophical texts of Pirie and Langer. To gain more knowledge of classical/ancient philosophy which does overlap with theology and philosophy of religion.

Argumentation presented within my Canadian, Christian, academic career and my secular United Kingdom, MPhil and PhD theses degrees was not by definition, syllogistic. Syllogistic argumentation would be allowed as exception only.

While validity and soundness was required, three or more premises were often provided (and academically required) in arguments, in support of a conclusion, within written text. This is also the case on my websites. I have not attempted to write syllogistic arguments, although I do attempt to present logical and sound arguments.

Non-syllogistic, deductive arguments were used within my academic work and are presented on my websites. When providing four or more premises, I am not attempting a strict syllogistic presentation.

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

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.

Genetic Fallacy/Damning The Origin/Damning The Source II

Venice: trekearth: Bridge of sighs

Genetic Fallacy/Damning The Origin/Damning The Source: February 4 2016

Edited from the archived 2016 article

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

Pirie: 'The genetic fallacy has nothing to do with Darwin'... (116) But a great deal to do with not liking where an argument comes from. (116). People give less credence to views which emanate from those they detest, regardless of the actual merit of the views themselves. (116). To dismiss an argument based on source alone is to commit the genetic fallacy. (116) Genetic fallacy is sometimes also known as 'damning the origin.' (116). 

'Damning the source' would work as well as a term. My add, having read this elsewhere previously.

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

Philosopher Blackburn again, as with elsewhere in his text, uses the word 'alleged' in regard to the subject of fallacy and in this case genetic fallacy. 'The alleged mistake of arguing that something is to be rejected because of its suspicious origins.' (155). A useful entry for balance: 'More widely, any mistake of inferring something about the nature of some topic from a proposition about its origins. Frequently such reasoning is, actually quite appropriate, as when one uses the make of an automobile as an indicator of its likely quality.' (155).

February 13 2020

Four years on and I reason that for this fallacy (Pirie) or alleged fallacy (Blackburn) to be clearly avoided requires an objective analysis of premises and conclusions forming arguments. Arguments, regardless of the source, for the sake of truth, need to be reviewed for validity and soundness.

Philosophy Index

Cited

The term sound is most frequently used to describe whether or not an argument is valid and has true premises, thereby guaranteeing the truth of its conclusion. In meta-logic, it is also used to describe a feature of a logical system. Soundness of arguments:  An argument that is sound is one that is both valid, and has all true premises. 

Therefore, by definition, a sound argument has a true conclusion.

Back to Pirie

A valid argument can have a false premise. (69). As long as the premise (s) are not true and the conclusion false, it is logically possible to have a valid argument.

Premise-Conclusion TT, FF, FT, TF combinations.

A true premise (s) and false conclusion (TF) from these combinations, cannot possibly be logically valid. The other combinations are logically valid.

However, as Pire recognizes, a sound (true) argument has all true premises. (69). I am not placing a limit on the number of premises within every type of argument. The conclusion would also be true.

Quaternio terminorum: The fallacy of four: July 13 2017

University of Kentucky

Cited

argument 

An Argument is a group of statements including one or more premises and one and only one conclusion. The point of an argument is to give the receiver of the argument good reason to believe new information.

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.

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

Slippery slope argument and the ridiculous conclusion that amuses my friend

Today

Slippery slope argument and the ridiculous conclusion that amuses my friend

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

Revisiting the concept of the slippery slope from British philosopher, Pirie.

The fallacy assumes that a single step in a particular direction, inevitably means that the whole distance will be covered. (189).

But, the truth is, sometimes a single step leads to another and there are cases when it does not. (189).

I agree with Pirie where he reasons: 'There is a limited class of cases in which someone is doomed after a first step...' Stepping off a skyscraper being a good philosophical example. (189). Based on the author's example: (189). If we lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 years of age, soon there will be a call in society for the legal drinking age to be lowered to 16 years of age. This is unlikely as in the 21st Century, the standard age of adulthood is typically 18 years of age. Therefore, it is doubtful there would be societal calls for the legal age of drinking to be below 'universal' adulthood.

The fallacy fails to differentiate between far-reaching actions and limited actions. (190). The author opines that most proposals would lead to disaster if taken too far. My examples: If one smokes marijuana, it will lead to cocaine use. This is true at times, marijuana being documented as a gateway drug, but it is not always the case in every instance. As it is written it is fallacious. If one smokes marijuana, it may lead to cocaine use. Reasonable. (I have no interest in recreational drugs or in the abuse of pharmaceutical drugs.)

Blackburn reasons that a slippery slope occurs when arguments one has accepted against something, appear to equally apply against one's own position. (353). Perhaps one is forced into considering or accepting a position that one has no desire to accept. (353). But, holding to a certain position on an issue, does not mean that one would hold to an extreme position. Accepting a noise bylaw, would not mean I accept that we should all live in near silence.

---

A good friend and I laugh in regards to comments made from an online pastor in a sermon.

Paraphrased, the idea from the sermon was that the modern Christians trying to be cool, ends up in a slippery slope of degrading moral thoughts, acts and actions. A Christian trying to be cool and relatable to people in the world system, drinks alcohol a bit, gets a tattoo and smokes a little marijuana and soon is hooked on drugs, alcohol and fornication. In other words, the Christian wanting to be cool, ends up living in a very similar way to the non-believer.

To highlight Pirie's view of the slippery slope argument as fallacy, I added, much to the satirical, humourous enjoyment of my good friend, the premise that ultimately this can lead to 'orgies.'

The ridiculousness of this imagined, formulaic, chain of moral thoughts, acts and actions, demonstrates the fallacious nature of the idea of the slippery slope argument.

Being somewhat cool, in a social situation, may include the limited use of alcohol and most moderate drinkers do not end up alcoholics. It is not a slippery slope. It is not universal or even typical.

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.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

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

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

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers, New York, Shelter Harbour Press.

SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

WALTON, D.N. (1992) Slippery Slope Arguments, Clarendon Press.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Slippery-Slope

All cats are selfish?

All cats are selfish?

The existential fallac

Edited for an entry on January 8, 2023

Photo

cat_hiding_in_the_sofa-700x560 anything.net 2016

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

Note

A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion.

Existential Fallacy 

Logically fallacious website referencing...

GOODMAN, M. F. (1983) First Logic, University Press of America, USA.

Cited 

'Description: A formal logical fallacy, which is committed when a categorical syllogism employs two universal premises (“all”) to arrive at a particular (“some”) conclusion. In a valid categorical syllogism, if the two premises are universal, then the conclusion must be universal, as well. The reasoning behind this fallacy becomes clear when you use classes without any members, and the conclusion states that there are members of this class -- which is wrong.'

Cited

'Logical Form: 

All X are Y. 

All Z are X. 

Therefore, some Z are Y. '

Cited 

'Just because the conclusion might be true, does not mean the logic used to produce it, was valid.'

This website is discussing a formal fallacy as problematic. Pirie too documents this as a formal fallacy (219).

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

It is a curious feature of logic that statements that refer to a whole of a class do not actually tell us whether there are members of that class.' (100).

'All cats are selfish.' (100).

Pirie explains that this documents that there are creatures known as cats. Being cats in themselves does not imply that they are selfish. (100). Rather the statement explains that some cats are selfish. It is a statement about a class and not necessarily each member of that class. (100).

It is a fallacy, according to Pirie to draw universal conclusions (100) in making that statement:

'All cats are selfish'. Rather, a more careful statement would be to state that some cats may demonstrate that they are selfish.

This fallacy brings me back to my United Kingdom academic training and the use of assertions versus arguments which would be premise (s) and conclusions. It would be a mere unproven, unsubstantiated assertion to state that 'All cats are selfish'. Instead a reasonable and sound argument is required.

This fallacy consists of placing something into a conclusion, which was not significantly offered as evidence in a premise (s). (100).

Admittedly, in academia, even in a PhD, at times assertions are used as each and every point in a dissertation cannot be argued in a limited space; but key ideas and points needs to be presented in valid argumentation.

Using the Langer text:

∃!=There exists
K=creatures
c=cats
$=selfishness

Below are more reasonable statements than 'All cats are selfish.' These are more reasonable assertions:

∃!=K (Creatures exist)
∃!=c (Cats exist)
∃!=$ (Selfishness exists)

Selfish creatures do exist, but not necessarily, universally cats.

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. 

GOODMAN, M. F. (1983) First Logic, University Press of America, USA. 

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

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers (2016), New York, Shelter Harbour Press.

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

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Travel Destinations on Twitter

Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem

Trekearth photo: Solva, Pembrokeshire, Wales 

Monday, September 22, 2008 The Phantom

Tuesday, October 20, 2015 Ad Hominem/Against the Man

Tuesday, April 04, 2017 Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial

Saturday, August 19, 2017 Tu quoque

Walton

Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). 

In other words, it is an informal fallacy, to use name-calling and abusive actions to attempt to win an argument. A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion.

Blackburn

Simon Blackburn explains that ad hominem is attempting to disprove what a person is stating by attacking the person, or less commonly by praising the person. Commonly it is a way of arguing forcefully or not, against a view without advancing the counter argument. Blackburn (1996: 24). This latter concept would be that of arguing against a held perspective without making any reasonable counter-arguments. 

Pirie

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

Ad Hominem/Against the Man

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122). The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122). The argument is not treated by its merit. (122). 

Therefore, in my opinion, someone could be rightly and justly called a 'jerk' because he/she is acting in such a negative way in an argument and this would not be the use of the fallacious. An informal fallacy being the use of poor and invalid reasoning. The invalid structure of argument is a formal fallacy. But if someone is called a 'jerk' in an attempt to undermine the opponent's argument then it is fallacious. 

Ad Hominem Argument Circumstantial 

With this fallacy 'the appeal is to the special circumstances of the person with whom one is arguing. Instead of trying to prove the contention true of false on the evidence, its acceptance is urged because of the position and interests of those appealed to.' (124).

Cited

'You can't accept the legitimacy of lending for profit. You are a Christian, and Christ drove out the money lenders from the temple.' (124). Pirie explains that the Christian is invited to agree because of Christian convictions. (124). I agree that this would be fallacious argumentation. Jesus Christ in the biblical context is removing the business of moneychanging and related banking from the temple. This should not be expanded to Christian theology and philosophy where all moneychanging, money lending and banking is therefore considered, sinful, immoral and unethical. 

In other words, banking outside of the temple, or in our modern context, the Christian Church, is not necessarily sinful, immoral and unethical. Interestingly, the British author also documents the example of nominal Christians that in reality do not follow biblical views in their personal lives. The nominal Christian could then be 'forced into a reluctant and resentful acquiescence you could never have gained otherwise.' (125). 

Problematically, many nominal Christians are biblically illiterate to the point where he/she may very well be unaware whether Jesus Christ's actions of removing moneychanging and banking from the temple, in the New Testament Gospels, would therefore require a modern-day Christian theology and philosophy that is anti-lending and anti-banking. Context is extremely important within Biblical Studies.

Tu quoque

A type of ad hominem.

Tu quoque means 'you also'. (201). This fallacy is committed by the claim that the proponent is guilty of what he/she accuses the opponent of. (201). This fallacy does not adequately deal with the subject under discussion. (202). Premises and conclusions do not reasonably deal with and resolve the subject under discussion. The truth or falsehood of the discussion is avoided and instead the background of the proponent, making the argument, is attacked by the opponent. (202). As well, the opponent may attempt to demonstrate inconsistency in the proponent's position, again without dealing without reasonably resolving the issue. (202). The previous views of the proponent are claimed to be inconsistent with present views. (202).

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).

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers (2016), New York,  Shelter Harbour Press.

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

SYNOPSIS OF THE FOUR GOSPELS (2010) Revised Standard Version, Edited by Kurt Aland, American Bible Society, New York.

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Such Trivial Objections

York scan, 1997

Such Trivial Objections

August 16, 2017 review of this fallacy in the Pirie text, edited 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).

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 

Neil Godrey from Vridar 

'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.

Cherry picking fallacy

Cherry picking fallacy

Photo: Visit Manchester, Manchester Cathedral

Preface

While living in Manchester, I did visit the Cathedral which was architecturally fairly interesting. I was not as impressed by the very liberal theology pamphlets that were on offer. 

The first place I lived in within Greater Manchester, was Crumpsall, and I used to do a very interesting walk from Crumpsall to well past this Cathedral in central Manchester.

One time a kind younger man in Crumpsall walked by me on the street and stated (paraphrased): 'Watch your back here, this is like the Bronx!' Interestingly, I visited the Bronx three years later.

Crumpsall seemed to be a more dangerous place than the Bronx, in my humble opinion, but I was (am) no expert.

Cherry picking fallacy (informal fallacy) 

Informal fallacies were reviewed in the Pirie text. This opposed to formal fallacies that are formal logic errors, that have been reviewed in Langer.

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

Facebook Discussion

Citing Dean Hintz 

I do find it somewhat puzzling that so many people who used to follow the advice of authoritative agencies such as these now are inclined to dismiss them out of hand simply based on popular social media feeds.

My Facebook reply 

Cherry picking, may be taking place in some cases. 

Logically fallacious 

Cited

Cherry Picking (also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness) Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

One-sided argument 

Thursday, June 29, 2017 A one-sided argument

I have reviewed a one-sided argument, previously, edited.

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

Many decisions persons may weigh in have advantages and disadvantages. The fallacy of one-sided assessment is fallen into when only one side of a case is taken into consideration. (158). 

Pros and cons should be evaluated in order to make judgements based on the balance. (158-159). This fallacy can err on only counting the advantages or disadvantages in regard to an issue. Relevant material is omitted from arguments in order to achieve a one-sided argument. (159). 

Providing two or more sides on an argument and supporting theology and philosophy with methodology was very much emphasized to me within my British academic studies at the University of Wales. Besides this approach providing more potential objectivity, at least, in the evaluation if arguments; it also disciplines the academic mind to reasonably consider alternative views. This is an approach which in theory should make an academic less biased and partisan.

Omitting the benefit

Tuesday, June 27, 2017 That idea would go over like an atomic bomb 

A one-sided argument is quite similar to omitting the benefit in the Pirie text. 

Cited 

When evaluating the benefits of an activity, both the good and bad consequence, should be considered. (157). If each may exist. A surprisingly (157) common fallacy consists of omitting the benefits produced by an activity or proposal and counting only the adverse consequences. (157).

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

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. 

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad/Appeal to false authority

Rumoured toilet paper truck,
somewhere in North America: Facebook

Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad/Appeal to false authority

Preface

Main source:

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

Defined

Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad:  Pirie explains this is an appeal to false authority. (210). A key, quote '...it is a fallacy to suppose that an expert in one field can lend support in another. Unless one has special expertise, he is a false authority.' (210).

Pirie explains that 'Knowledge is specialized, and we have to accept the views of authorities to some extent.' (2010). There is a general reluctance to challenge the view of someone who appears much more qualified than ordinary people. (2010).

When this person (s), the source, is not reasonably qualified, this is an appeal to authority, Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad. (2010-2011). A related fallacy is an appeal to an identified authority. (2011). Supposedly, a highly qualified anonymous source (2011), would qualify as an appeal to an identified authority. These sources may or may not, be reliable, but as they are anonymous, Pirie explains, 'All we can do is to accept the apparent authority they have.' (2012).

Or not, I would add...

With his entry on authority, Blackburn states: 'A person, institution, or organization is said to have authority when the power it exercises is supposed legitimate...'(30). Blackburn mentions there is a system of 'norms' by which authority is assumed and asserted. (30). He acknowledges that there is 'scepticism about particular claims of authority...' (30). Based on his comments: Blackburn indicates that human society cannot function adequately without a significant acceptance of professional authority guiding that society. (30).

Texas State: Department of Philosophy 

Cited 

'Department of Philosophy Dr. Craig Hanks, Chair '

'Irrelevant Authority 

The fallacy of irrelevant authority is committed when you accept without proper support for his or her alleged authority, a person's claim or proposition as true. Alleged authorities should only be used when the authority is reporting on his or her field of expertise, the authority is reporting on facts about which there is some agreement in his or her field, and you have reason to believe he or she can be trusted. Alleged authorities can be individuals or groups. The attempt to appeal to the majority or the masses is a form of irrelevant authority. The attempt to appeal to an elite or select group is a form of irrelevant authority. 

Examples: 

Brad Pitt was seen wearing Designer Bob's sunglasses, so they must be the best sunglasses to wear. 

There is nothing to be learned from the East, for Gilbert Ryle, the great British philosopher once said, nothing but the sun rises in the East. 

Nobody is a better judge than public opinion.

Pacifism is a good idea because the brilliant scientist Einstein advocated it. 

Mom, why can't I get my tongue pierced? Everyone else is doing it. 

Most of my friends say they stopped thinking about philosophy the minute they got through the semester, so I know this class is worthless. 

Everyone loves the Danger Kitty album; they must be a great band. 

I agree with Alec Baldwin's stance on global warming. He must know what he's talking about, being a famous celebrity and all.'

---

Logically Fallacious 

Cited 

'Appeal to False Authority (also known as: appeal to doubtful authority, appeal to dubious authority, appeal to improper authority, appeal to inappropriate authority, appeal to irrelevant authority, appeal to misplaced authority, appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority) 

Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made. Also see the appeal to authority. 

Logical Forms: According to person 1 (who offers little or no expertise on Y being true), Y is true. Therefore, Y is true.' 

'References: 

Hume, D. (2004)  An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Courier Corporation.'

---

Not too far away...

Summary

My examples

Professor Jones is an expert on the Hebrew Bible, therefore he is an expert on philosophy.

Pastor Jones is a popular preacher, therefore he is an excellent theologian.

My take, non-exhaustively, is that authority is worthy of trust when he/she, the source, often professionally, is through the use of specialized, research, knowledge and evidence, providing reasonable and true premises supporting a true conclusion. Providing a sound argument, which is an argument with all true premises. Or at least, reasonable, true, statements/propositions are provided by a true, actual, authority if not an argument (s). It is true, of course, that a legitimate authority could be in error on a topic and issue.

Within a topic in context, embracing to significant degrees, propositions and/or arguments from non-experts, those without specialized, research, knowledge and evidence that are highly reliant on types of speculation, is Verecundiam, Argumentum, Ad/Appeal to false authority. This done without reasonable and true propositions and/or reasonable and true premises leading to a reasonable and true conclusion, through, for example, the use of feelings, hunches and guessing is both the fallacy as described and is a philosophical error.

---

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. 

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

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.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

Tricky Equivocation?

Today

Tricky Equivocation?

Updated on August 14, 2022. Mainly a review of the Pirie text.

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

'Equivocation' means the use of words ambiguously. Often done with intent to deceive, it can even deceive the perpetrator.

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when words are used with more than one meaning, even though the soundness of the reasoning requires the same use to be sustained throughout. (90).

Happiness is the end of life 
The end of life is death 
So happiness is death (90).

Pirie notes importantly that the above argument is valid in format. (90) But it is fallacious.

I would deny the proposition that happiness is the end of life. I do not agree. Happiness can be part of life.

Based on the Pirie's point that the argument format is valid; this again, as I have noted in previous articles, demonstrates the difference between a logical argument and a reasonable argument,

More important is the reasonableness and soundness (truthfulness) of an argument.

A key to denying questionable arguments is to deny at the proposition & premise stage.

A proposition is the same as a statement.

A premise (s) is to support the conclusion.

'Equivocation use of words is fallacious because it invites us to transfer what we are prepared to accept about one concept onto another one which happens to have the same name.' (90).

'Calvin Coolidge was once asked:

'What do you think of the singer's execution?'

(He replied: I'm all for it') (91).

Blackburn: Equivocate

'To make a statement that is capable of being taken in more than one way, with the aim of exploiting the ambiguity.' (124).

A friend: 'I saw Chucky, murdering someone last night.'

Me "Did you call the Ridge-Meadows RCMP?'

A friend: 'I saw Chucky (fictional doll), murdering someone last night.' (on television)

Me "Did you call the Ridge-Meadows RCMP?' (In regard to Howard: also known as Chucky)

Why assume it is our friend, Chucky?

This would be using fallacious reasoning. A fallacious proposition & premise.

Texas State University: Department of Philosophy

Cited 

'Equivocation 

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.'

Example 

Cited

'Sure philosophy helps you argue better, but do we really need to encourage people to argue? There's enough hostility in this world.'

(Argue1 = Argue more effectively)

(Argue2 = Argue with hostility)

(An argument does not necessarily imply hostility)

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

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.

TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY (2022): 'Equivocation', Dr. Craig Hanks, Chair, Texas State University.

Texas State University: Department of Philosophy

Trulyfallacious.com

Retreating & Twisting

Retreating & Twisting

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

The Definitional Retreat

'A definitional retreat takes place when someone changes the meaning of the words in order to deal with an objection raised against the original wording. By changing the meaning, he turns it into a different statement.'

Pirie uses an example: 'When I said I hadn't been drinking, officer, I meant that I hadn't had more than I get through in a normal social evening.' (77-78).

My examples:

When I said I was a Christian, I meant that I think there is probably a God.

When I said you were fat, I meant that you were phat, as in excellent.

The author explains that a definitional retreat allows a person to save face when their argument has been demonstrated to significantly lack merit. (78).

Pirie reasons that philosophers often change definitions when shown as questionable. (78).

Definitions are not to be subjective, they have objective meanings.

This is a reason I revise my writing, because sometimes corrections have to be made in premises, conclusions and reasoning. Definition twisting, does not assist with my pursuit of the truth. My revisions are documented when significant. I admit that minor revisions are often made after publish, because some problems are not apparent until after publish. That is a visual issue, not an integrity one.

But if I do change my mind...it is better to revise statements and/or arguments when needed and to note it.

Pirie mentions that UK finance ministers are good at the use of this fallacy. (79). They use definitional retreat.

I think politicians often use fallacies when definitions are changed to portray a different story. Statistics can be stated to mean one thing in January and something else in December.

Definist fallacy

Blackburn defines a similar type of fallacy:

'The illicit insistence on defining a term in a way that is favourable to one's own side of an argument.' (96). I take this point, but it is also possible that with the use of objective reasoning, one's own definition is not fallacious. But, a term should be not twisted. One can insist that a definition based on a true premise (s) and conclusions is sound.

Logical Fallacies

Definist fallacy

'Description: Defining a term in such a way that makes one’s position much easier to defend.

Logical Form: A has definition X. X is harmful to my argument. Therefore, A has definition Y.

Example #1: Before we argue about the truth of creationism, let’s define creationism as, “The acceptance of a set of beliefs even more ridiculous than those of flat-earthers.”

Example #2: Before we argue about the truth of creationism, let’s define evolution as, “Faith in a crackpot theory that is impossible to prove with certainty.”'

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).

LOGICAL FALLACIES, References: BUNNIN, N., & Yu, J. (2008) The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, John Wiley & Sons.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Definist-Fallacy

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.

Shiny new fallacy?

Shiny new fallacy?

Apple photo

Preface   

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

Shiny new fallacy 

It is fallacious to assume age is a guide to correctness. (152). The ad antiquitatem relies on tradition to fallaciously support a claim. (Pirie spells it as ad antiquitam) (152). It is also fallacious to assume that something new is more correct. (152). The argumentum ad novitam is in error because it assumes that newness is a factor in making something correct and sound. (152).

Pirie documents this second fallacy as

Novitam, argumentum ad

Logically fallacious

Cited

'Appeal to Novelty

argumentum ad novitatem (also known as: appeal to the new, ad novitam [sometimes spelled as]) 

Description: Claiming that something that is new or modern is superior to the status quo, based exclusively on its newness.

Logical Form: X has been around for years now. Y is new. Therefore, Y is better than X.'

Cited

References: 

Sternberg, R. J., III, H. L. R., & Halpern, D. F. (2007). Critical Thinking in Psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Related

The first fallacy noted...

Logically fallacious

'Appeal to Tradition argumentum ad antiquitatem (also known as: appeal to common practice, appeal to antiquity, appeal to traditional wisdom, proof from tradition, appeal to past practice, traditional wisdom)."

Therefore, as examples, considering these two fallacies..

It is fallacious to assume progressive ideas are by definition, superior to conservative ideas.

It is fallacious to assume conservative ideas are by definition, superior to progressive ideas.

Premises/propositions leading to conclusions should be evaluated on an individual basis, even while admitting propositions and conclusions are developed within a worldview. This is true within Biblical Studies, Theology, Philosophy/Philosophy of Religion, and within other academic disciplines, and in all forms of reason. Some progressive liberal ideas may be superior to conservative ideas, but ideas should not be assumed to be so without reason and evidence. Some conservative ideas may be superior to progressive ideas, but ideas should not be assumed to be so without reason and evidence. I definately, definitively, strongly, have a worldview more on the moderate conservative side, within a Reformed, Biblical, tradition.

Pirie explains that these two fallacies can conflict. (154). An appeal to the new versus and appeal to the old. As noted this can take place in the form of progressive versus conservative ideas, but admittedly, theoretically, at times, progressive liberal approaches can embrace older ideas and conservatism can embrace newer ideas.

Cited 

References:

Harpine, W. D. (1993). The Appeal to Tradition: Cultural Evolution and Logical Soundness. Informal Logic, 15(3).

---

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). 

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers, New York, Shelter Harbour Press. 

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

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California. 

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

Genetic Fallacy/Damning The Origin/Damning The Source IV

Genetic Fallacy/Damning The Origin/Damning The Source IV

NASA photo, July 12, 2022

Archived Related Articles

Thursday, February 04, 2016 Genetic Fallacy/Damning The Origin/Damning The Source 

Thursday, February 13, 2020 Genetic Fallacy/Damning The Origin/Damning The Source II

Wednesday, July 08, 2020 Genetic Fallacy/Damning The Origin/Damning The Source III

My continued attempts at improvement and clarification with God's help. I embrace, and have embraced, since I began studying within academia, the concept of praying to God for objectivity.

Archived Edited Definitions From Two British Philosophers

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

Pirie: 'The genetic fallacy has nothing to do with Darwin'... (116) But a great deal to do with not liking where an argument comes from. (116). People give less credence to views which emanate from those they detest, regardless of the actual merit of the views themselves. (116).

Note that this fallacious approach demonstrates a lack of objective thinking. Objective thinking being a view and/or approach primarily based on the object, facts not feelings. Instead this fallacy shows the use of subjective thinking, which more so as a view or approach reflects the thoughts of the person thinking, subjectively, than objective thoughts on the issue in question. 

This view and/or approach would therefore be more influenced by feelings than facts. To dismiss an argument based on source alone is to commit the genetic fallacy. (116)

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

Interestingly, philosopher Blackburn again, as with elsewhere in his text, uses the word 'alleged' in regard to the subject of fallacy and in this case genetic fallacy. 'The alleged mistake of arguing that something is to be rejected because of its suspicious origins.' (155). A useful entry for balance: 'More widely, any mistake of inferring something about the nature of some topic from a proposition about its origins. Frequently such reasoning is, actually quite appropriate, as when one uses the make of an automobile as an indicator of its likely quality.' (155). Without disagreeing with the writers or Pirie and the documented academic fallacy, I also once again can appreciate Blackburn's cautious and balanced academic approach as reasonable.

Academic considerations

An example I have written on previously, that comes to mind is a debate with a critic and friend from years ago. The critic stated (paraphrased): The academic work of Biblical scholars cannot be trusted because they are all Christians. 

However: Biblical scholars presenting academic work are Christians and non-Christians. (There are for example, Jewish and Hebrew, Hebrew Bible scholars and some non-religious, Biblical scholars presenting academic work). Christian scholars can have objectivity. The terms Christian and Biblical scholar are not mutually exclusive. By definition to be a scholar, recognized at a Masters and/or Doctoral level with a degree by a significant University, or roughly equivalent experience, requires at least a significant level of objectivity. 

To work at a significant academic institution requires at least a significant level of objectivity, to have an academic book or work published by a significant publisher requires at least a significant level of objectivity. Therefore the critic used the genetic fallacy and damned the origin and damned the source.

Instead, the critic, for the sake of truth, should seek objectivity. Objectivity in examining, reasonable, related, propositions/statements/conclusions made within the academic work of Biblical scholars. 

The critic, for the sake of truth, would need to seek objectivity in examining arguments, a premise (s) and conclusion made by Biblical scholars.

Practical considerations

To avoid fallaciously (at least, acknowledging what Blackburn states) damning the source, does the critic offer a reasonable:

Argument with a logical, premise and conclusion?

and/or

Argument with logical, premises and conclusion?

Or at least, a reasonable...

Statement/proposition, also known as conclusion?

Is there counter evidence against the critic's argument (s) and/or proposition (s) that is/are superior?  

Does the critic speculate without reasonable evidence? There is philosophical room for speculation, granted, this is part of our curiosity in human nature, but speculative theories should not be held to as reasoned fact (s).

Soundness

Philosophy Index

Cited

The term sound is most frequently used to describe whether or not an argument is valid and has true premises, thereby guaranteeing the truth of its conclusion. In meta-logic, it is also used to describe a feature of a logical system. Soundness of arguments:  An argument that is sound is one that is both valid, and has all true premises. 

Therefore, by definition, a sound argument has a true conclusion.

Back to Pirie 

A valid argument can have a false premise. (69). As long as the premise (s) are not true and the conclusion false, it is logically possible to have a valid argument. Premise-Conclusion TT, FF, FT, TF combinations. A true premise (s) and false conclusion (TF) from these combinations, cannot possibly be logically valid. The other combinations are logically valid. However, as Pire recognizes, a sound (true) argument has all true premises. (69). I am not placing a limit on the number of premises within every type of argument. The conclusion would also be true.

---

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).

PHILOSOPHY INDEX, 2020 Philosophy Index

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

False Conversion (In philosophy)

Vancouver Instagram

False Conversion (In philosophy)

Preface

From a review of the Pirie text:

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

'False conversion takes place when we deduce from the fact that all cats are animals the additional information that all animals are cats. The converse of a statement made by exchanging the subject and predicate, is true in some cases, false in others. (106).

All rats are four-legged animals, means all four-legged animals are rats is obviously false. (106).

True conversion according to Pirie:

No innovative people are bureaucrats. Therefore, no bureaucrats are innovative people. (107).

False conversion according to Pirie:

Some journalists are not drunks, therefore, some drunks are not journalists. (107). Pirie states this may or may not be true, but cannot be deduced from this false conversion. (107).

----

S = Spaniards

P = Portuguese 

(My add)

Fallacy Files

A All S is P, therefore All P is S No conversion

E No S is P, therefore No P is S Yes conversion

I Some S is P, therefore Some P is S: Yes conversion

O Some S is not P, therefore Some P is not S: No conversion

Some Spaniards are not Portuguese does not necessarily mean that some Portuguese are not Spaniards.

Cited

Paul Edwards (Editor in Chief), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Macmillan, 1972), Volume 3, pp. 170-1 and Volume 5, p. 37.

'As can be seen from the table, the E- and I-type propositions are equivalent to their converses, which means that conversion is a validating form of immediate inference for E- and I-type categorical propositions. In contrast, conversion is non-validating for the A- and O-type propositions. Hence, to commit the traditional fallacy of Illicit Conversion is to convert an A- or O-type proposition.'

----

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.

EDWARDS, PAUL (1972) (Editor in Chief), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Macmillan, 1972), Volume 3, pp. 170-1 and Volume 5, p. 37.

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.

Fallacy Files: Notes 

(Selected relevant notes, my add)

Madsen Pirie, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic (2006), pp. 74-6. 

Charles Ives, Essays Before a Sonata, The Majority, and Other Writings, edited by Howard Boatwright (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1962), p. 77. Via: Howard Pospesel, Introduction to Logic: Predicate Logic (1976), p. 176. 

The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, Editor in Chief (Macmillan, 1972), Volume 3, pp. 170-1 and Volume 5, p. 37. 

Slippery slope III

Courtesy J.C. Zombie: Las Vegas

Slippery slope III

Related articles

Monday, August 27, 2018: Slippery slope argument and the ridiculous conclusion that amuses my friend

Friday, August 04, 2017: The Slippery Slope: Stepping off a skyscraper 

Madsen Pirie on the slippery slope fallacy

I have discussed the slippery slope argument, considered fallacious by British, philosopher Madsen Pirie with the two links above.

The fallacy assumes that a single step in a particular direction, inevitably means that the whole distance will be covered. (189). But, the truth is, sometimes a single step leads to another and there are cases when it does not. (189). I agree with Pirie where he reasons: 'There is a limited class of cases in which someone is doomed after a first step...' Stepping off a skyscraper being a good philosophical example. (189). 

Based on the author's example: (189). If we lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 years of age, soon there will be a call in society for the legal drinking age to be lowered to 16 years of age. This is unlikely as in the 21st Century, the standard age of adulthood is typically 18 years of age. Therefore, it is doubtful there would be societal calls for the legal age of drinking to be below 'universal' adulthood. The fallacy fails to differentiate between far-reaching actions and limited actions. (190). The author opines that most proposals would lead to disaster if taken too far. 

My examples: 

If one smokes marijuana, it will lead to cocaine use. This is true at times, marijuana being documented as a gateway drug, but it is not always the case in every instance. As it is written it is fallacious. If one smokes marijuana, it may lead to cocaine use. Reasonable. (I have no interest in recreational drugs or in the abuse of pharmaceutical drugs.) 

I can accept that slippery slope is fallacious because a single step in a direction, does not mean that the whole distance will be covered. (189). In fact, there could be steps forward and steps backward.

Slippery slope with ridiculous example

From my 2018 entry, the sermon mentioned was stating that the modern Christian trying to be cool, ends up in a slippery slope of degrading moral thoughts, acts and actions. A Christian trying to be cool and relatable to people in the world system, drinks alcohol a bit, gets a tattoo and smokes a little marijuana and soon is hooked on drugs, alcohol and fornication. In other words, the Christian wanting to be cool, ends up living in a very similar way to the non-believer. 

To highlight Pirie's view of the slippery slope argument as fallacy, I added the satirical, humourous example. The premise being that actions described by the pastor can ultimately, in my satirical words, lead to 'orgies.' The ridiculousness of this imagined, formulaic, chain of moral thoughts, acts and actions, demonstrates the fallacious nature of the idea of the slippery slope argument. Being somewhat cool, in a social situation, may include the limited use of alcohol and most moderate drinkers do not end up alcoholics. It is not a slippery slope. It is not universal or even typical.

For balance

For balance though, philosophical and worldview trends do need to be considered. Moderation and reason is key in regards to social and political movements supported by those within the Christian Church prayerfully, desiring to be true to the scripture. This whether of the moderate left or the moderate right. 

Do advancements by the social and political left in our societies mean that Canada and the United States will eventually end up, Marxist, socialist states? No, as on this website, I agree with philosopher Pirie and reject the slippery slope argument. Some advancements where the left are involved, are actually in agreement with a New Testament worldview, such as a more focused social and political opposition to racism (Galatians 3: 28, 1 Corinthians 12: 12-13). 

But I can conclude that governments that embrace radicalized views will generally produce radicalized government. In my humble opinion, the radical left, given enough power will 'cannibalize' the moderates on the left. As the radical right, given enough power, would 'cannibalize' the moderates on the right.

(I support neither the radical left or radical right, but view a rise of the radical left, more likely in western societies, at present)

Theoretically, if the radical left becomes more mainstream, a scenario where biblical Christianity, biblical Christian institutions and biblical Christians run ethically and legally, afoul of governments, and societies because of political correctness, is reasonable and not far-fetched. New Testament sexual ethics, reasonably interpreted in scriptural context, for church members, one example.  

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

Courtesy J.C. Zombie

Stop sending me this

This is obviously satire and not a true likeness.

Pastor Osteen teaches a prosperity gospel, also known as health and wealth gospel. But, a full (more complete and accurate) gospel message and its 'bloody cross' and the associated positives and negatives from the biblical gospel, for humanity, are not likely as profitable to preach, today. 

I have heard Osteen preach the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is capable of preaching a basic gospel message and God's sovereignty, which are decently accurate by my Reformed standards. 

If Pastor Osteen preached biblically, far more, instead of  presenting presumptive theology assuming a prosperous, divine, 'destiny' for people, he might gain a little credibility with some critics.

---

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.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers, New York, Shelter Harbour Press.

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

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

SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

WALTON, D.N. (1992) Slippery Slope Arguments, Clarendon Press.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Slippery-Slope