Informal fallacies are fallacies that relate to the
meaning, rather than the form of, words and propositions in an argument.
Fallacies can arise over misinterpretations due to ambiguity or vagueness in
language, the presence in an argument of propositions irrelevant to the
meaning, or unreasonable inductive inferences.
Below is brief description of the major informal
fallacies.
1
This list is not a comprehensive list, but includes a few of the most common
fallacies that have manifested as hermeneutical mistakes in commentaries of
various interpreters.
Begging the
question occurs when a conclusion is simply assumed in the premises.
Usually begging the question assuming a conclusion without attempting to
support it through arguments, but sometimes it can be used as circular
reasoning.
Cherry picking
occurs when an interpreter selectively picks only data that is useful as
evidence for a particular point of view. This is a frequent problem in Biblical
hermeneutics. People will cherry-pick proof-texts and string them together to
form doctrine without considering the broader context or other passages to get
a more complete view of Scriptural teaching.
Example 1:
One sect teaches that 1 John 3:9 teaches that Christians cannot sin because
they have cherry-picked the text that says "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of
God." Other sects insist that we will always have sin in our
lives while we are on the earth because of 1 John 1:8 that says " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us. " different sect draw contradictory
conclusions by cherry-picking two clauses that are not only in the same book,
but also in the same context. 1 John, when seen in context, asserts that the
born experience transforms human nature by planting the Word of God as
spiritual DNA. The action of the Word of God in the life of the believer will
progressively transform that believer from one who sins to one who does righteousness.
Cherry-picking is also common in anti-Christian
polemics. Anti-Christians will pull verse out of context to create a picture
far removed from the picture that was intended by God and the human authors of
the Bible. These haters would cherry-pick difficult passages from have you believe that Moses is a
genocide-loving, pro-slavery fascist. They avoid the many other Scriptures that
extol the sanctity of human life, particularly the fact that the unequivocal
condemnation of child sacrifice in the
Mosaic law was unprecedented for any
ancient near eastern nation of that era. The pagan world in which God revealed
Himself was quite inhumane and particularly hostile to women and children, and
that it was the influence of Judeo-Christian morality that enlightened the
world to the heinous nature of practices like slavery and genocide that are
today universally condemned.
A complex
question is a question that has two or more
components that present a concealed dilemma. Complex questions are
worded such that any yes or no answer involves implying something that is false
or scandalous. For example, any yes or
no answer to the question "have you
stopped beating your spouse" implies that the person interrogated has
beaten their spouse. If the implication has already been established, then the
complex question is valid as a follow up question; otherwise, it is a fallacy.
Unless spouse abuse has already been factually established, this question would
be fallacious.
A loaded
question is a complex question that contains emotionally loaded language
The question "Do you support marriage equality or the continuation of
bigotry" is a loaded question. It assumes that the only possibilities are
support for same-sex marriage or bigotry - that there is no possibility of
reasonable disagreement. Here I Blog shows a real world example of this:
"
Fallacy of Complex Question – is loaded with
assumption so the opponent is guilty no matter the answer.
"Again, from the Anderson – Morgan debate. At about 2:40 Morgan
begins asking Anderson about prisoners’ rights to marry asking, “You would
rather defend a prisoner’s right to get married than you would Suze Orman’s right to get married
to her partner?”
"If Anderson simply answers “no” then it appears he is not in favor
of prisoners marrying. If he simply says “yes” then Morgan has not only been
allowed to re-define the topic again, but it seems as though Anderson wants
greater rights for convicted criminals than for Orman
and all homosexuals."
Fallacies of
distribution (composition - division)
are fallacies that wrongly interpret the relationship between the whole or
collective of a class and the particular members that make up that class. Such
fallacies can be fallacies of composition or division. Fallacies of composition are fallacies that make wrong inferences
about the whole of something based upon known facts concerning some or every
part of the whole. Fallacies of division
are fallacies that make wrong inferences about some or every part of the whole
based upon known facts concerning the whole of something.
Atheists commit the fallacy of composition when they argue that religion is the source
of all wars, violence, and repressive behaviors. They cite the behavior of
certain extreme groups, but commit the fallacy of composition by arguing that
the attribute that lead these group to violence are attributes of religion in
general. What applies to certain sects does not apply to every sect - or to the
whole.
Rationalization, in both psychology and logic, involves
making excuses. The informal fallacy of
rationalization occurs when people resort to making an excessive number of
ad hoc hypothesis to salvage a view that has many difficulties. An ad hoc
hypothesis is an alternate explanation that is invoked and applied exclusively
to plug up a hole in a theory. Ad hoc
hypotheses are not always fallacious; sometimes they can provide important
modifications to a theory that make it workable. When done excessively,
however, it can destroy the possibility of as coherent understanding of a topic
- bringing instead an incoherent patchwork of ideas that just don't fit
together.
Rationalization
occurs in Biblical hermeneutics when a doctrine is asserted is found
to run contrary to the plain meaning,
and the interpreter re-interprets the passages that contradict the doctrine in
way different from the plain sense. An occasional rationalization can be
justified, because sometimes literary and textual considerations indicate that
a passages is best interpreted in a fashion different than the plain sense. If
one's doctrine requires them to constantly or excessively rationalize a large
number of Scripture to make the Scripture fit the doctrine, then there is a big
problem. Interpreting the plain sense is the default - and most of the time -
best way to read the Scripture.
Rationalization is often employed alongside
cherry-picking, particularly in defense of denominational "sacred
cows." The sect will cherry-pick verses that support their sacred cow doctrinal
point, and then explain away large number of Scriptures that contradict the
doctrine. They employ any fallacy, whether it is a hermeneutical mistake or
logical fallacy, to evade the plain application of the passage in refuting the
pet doctrine. They may argue that the passage is allegorical, and interpret the
allegory to fit the pet doctrine. They may deconstruct either the passage or a
key word, interpreting in way that fits their pet doctrine rather than the
context in which the passage is actually found.
Relative
privation is a fallacy that argues that a point is unimportant because
another may be perceived as more
important. It is often used in an attempt to dismiss the condemnation of one
sin because another is not being adequately
addressed, being often tethered to accusations of hypocrisy. Those who
would advocate that the Bible fails to condemn homosexuality will argue that
those who condemn it fail to condemn adultery, charging them with hypocrisy.
Their intent is to stop people from condemning homosexuality. This is
fallacious, as the Biblical condemnation of hypocrisy was never intended to
become a license to sin but a call to be consistently sin-free. When we find
ourselves having inconsistent attitudes towards sin, we should continue to
pursue a more consistent righteousness rather than justify sin. Since the Bible
calls both homosexuality and adultery sinful, our moral teaching should be
consistent with the Bible.
Correlative-based fallacies occur when errors are made
in representing the number of logical possibilities in a given context. There
are three type of correlative or correlation-based fallacies: Denying the
correlative, Suppressing correlative, False dilemma.
Denying the
correlative is attempting to insert a possibility that does not really
exist. Suppressing the correlative
involves defining the possibilities such that one or more are eliminated. The
most common correlative fallacy is the false dilemma.
A false dilemma
exist when it is asserted that there are only two logical possibilities when in
fact there are other possibilities. The Jewish religious leaders sought to trap
Jesus with a false dilemma in Matthew 22:15-22.
They asked him " Is it
lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? " The dilemma they were trying to set up
allowed only two possibilities: Be a traitor to the Law of God and give tribute
to Caesar, or be a traitor to Caesar and reject tribute to Caesar. They thought
they had Him trapped.
"Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they
might entangle him in his talk. 16 And they sent out unto him their disciples
with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou
art true, and teachest the way of God in truth,
neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. 17
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it
lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their
wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image
and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things
which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 22
When they had heard these words, they marvelled,
and left him, and went their way." - Mat 22:15-22
Jesus, however, saw through their scheme. He
demonstrated that it was a false dilemma and grab the dilemma by the horns. In
vs 19-20, He asks whose image is on the money. They answered it was Caesar.
Jesus replied " Render therefore unto Caesar
the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
" Jesus pointed out that the Jewish leadership had, by their actions had
entered into a social contract with Caesar. They used Caesar's money, Caesar's
roads, and in less than a week they would use Caesar's police power and courts
to crucify Christ, claiming that their only king was Caesar. They had entered
into a social contract, or in Hebrew thought, taken a vow or promise of allegiance
to Caesar. Jesus answer, then was one that was legal under both God's and
Caesar's law.
Inductive fallacies include sampling bias, false
analogy, slothful induction, hasty generalization, and "correlation proves
causation."
False analogy
is where an analogy is drawn on irrelevant grounds. For example, it is a false
analogy to conclude that bizarre facial hair causes people to become ruthless
dictators because there is no connection between attribute of one's facial hair
to their political philosophy or moral character.
Sampling bias occurs when the data
observed in a sample is not representative of the whole population or class of
objects. Sampling bias often occur in comparing statistics. For example,
comparisons between the United States and many other developed countries on
standardized test are faulty due to sampling bias; in the United states any
high school student is eligible to take the SAT test, whereas in many other
countries only the top students are allowed to sit for an SAT-comparable test.
The test sample in these countries are not representative to the total student
populations, but only the elite students, so it is unable to provide a valid
comparison between the overall student populations between the United States
and other developed countries
Hasty
generalization occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on insufficient
observations. Hasty generalizations fail because there is not enough
information to know whether the observed sample is representative of the whole
class. Hasty generalization occurs in the promotion of many ideas in the
evolutionist movement, as we do not have an adequate basis of observation to
know whether the observation sample is representative of extreme of space and
time.
Slothful
induction occurs where there is sufficient information to justify a
conclusion, but no conclusion is drawn. Atheistic scientists commit slothful
induction occurs in relation to the fine-tuning argument, which present strong
evidence against a random universe but presents implications that are difficult
for an atheistic or materialistic philosophy. Many scientists who are
philosophic materialists have conjectured that the current universe is just one
of an infinite number of universes in a multiverse. This theory, by its very
nature, is untestable; it is a rationalization - the
creation of an ad hoc hypothesis without any testability in order to salvage
their viewpoint and avoid the strong inference that is suggested by the
fine-tuning argument.
It is a fallacy to assert that mere correlation proves causation. Merely
because things are similar or coincide does not
imply a causal connection. For example, there is a strong correlation between
the consumption of ice-cream and the
rise in juvenile crime rates. It would however be a fallacy to conclude that
consumption of ice cream causes crime. Such an explanation is fallacious
because it provides no explanation of
any mechanism adequate to account for causation. There is no mechanism to that
connects causally ice-cream consumption to juvenile delinquency. There is,
however, a mechanism that connects summer vacation via boredom to juvenile
delinquency; and there is also a
mechanism that connects heat to ice cream consumption - both of which occur in
the summer months.
Fallacies of
correlation occur in evolutionary theory when similarities amongst fossils
and genomes of various types of organisms. Mere similarity does not prove
common descent, and scientists have not observed any mechanism adequate to
account for the diversity of life. Evolutionary biologists have proposed such mechanisms, but have not, and due to the
nature of evolution likely never will, confirm the existence of these
mechanisms.
Fallacies of Amphibology
and Equivocation are fallacies related to ambiguity in
language. Amphiboly involves ambiguity in sentence structure and equivocation
involves people shifting the meanings of words in the middle of a discourse.
This ambiguity of amphibology allows people to parse words
in a very misleading way by exploiting the range of meanings possible in a
given word or sentence structure. The greater the amphibology, the more wiggle
room careless or dishonest interpreters have to focus on the range of meaning
that is most convenient for their purposes.
It is even entirely possible to have war of definitions. The Bible calls
this striving over words.
" If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to
wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine
which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting
about questions and strifes of words,
whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds,
and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such
withdraw thyself." - 1 Timothy 6:3-5
The Bible strongly condemns this parsing of words,
characterizing this practice as "perverse disputings of men of
corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth (verse5)." God
wants us to pursue truth in interpretation. We should specifically avoid
informal fallacies in both Biblical interpretation and our broader thinking.
References
1 List of Fallacies, sect
Informal Fallacies, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies
1What are Informal Fallacies?
2 What are three types of informal fallacies?
3 Which two-fallacy combination is the most common in
Biblical hermeneutics?
4 Fill in the blank the fallacy
a ( ) occurs
when an interpreter selectively picks only data that is useful as evidence for
a particular point of view.
b ( ) occurs
when a conclusion is simply assumed in the premises.
c A ( ) is a
question that has two or more components
that present a concealed dilemma. Complex questions are worded such that any
yes or no answer involves implying something else that is false or scandalous without actually
establishing the implication.
d A ( ) is a
complex question that contains emotionally loaded language.
e ( ) are
fallacies that wrongly interpret the relationship between the whole or collective
of a class and the particular members that make up that class. Such fallacies
can be fallacies of composition or division.
f ( ) are
fallacies that make wrong inferences about the whole of something based upon
known facts concerning some or every part of the whole.
g ( ) are
fallacies that make wrong inferences about some or every part of the whole
based upon known facts concerning the whole of something.
h ( ) occurs in Biblical hermeneutics when a
doctrine is asserted is found to run
contrary to the plain meaning, and the interpreter re-interprets the passages
that contradict the doctrine in way different from the plain sense in order to salvage the doctrine.
i ( ) is a
fallacy that argues that a point is unimportant because another may be
perceived as more important. It is often used in an attempt to dismiss the
condemnation of one sin because another is not being adequately addressed.
j A ( ) exists
when it is asserted that there are only two logical possibilities when in fact
there are other possibilities.
k ( ) is where
an analogy is drawn on irrelevant grounds.
l ( ) occurs when
the data observed in a sample is not representative of the whole population or
class of objects.
m ( ) occurs
when a conclusion is drawn based on
insufficient observations.
n ( ) occurs where
there is sufficient information to justify a conclusion, but no conclusion is
drawn.
o The
fallacy of ( ) is the
assumption that events or phenomena that are similar or coincide imply a causal connection.
p ( ) involves ambiguity in sentence structure
q ( ) involves shifting the meanings of words in
the middle of a discourse.
