Matt Slick's Vicious Circle Fallacy
From CARM:
Following are some statements made by those in relativism.
and paste the reply into a window and see what they say.
Find one that fits, copy
"All truth is relative"
If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true.
If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative; and the statement that "All truth
is relative" is false.
"There are no absolute truths"
The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is
supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth; and "There are no absolute
truths" is false.
If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all,
including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for
you--including relativism.
Vicious Circle Principle: Principia Mathmatica
The Vicious Circle Principle expressed here
is entirely based upon:
Principia Mathmatica volume 1, pages 37-58
By Bertrand Russell and Alfred North
Whitehead.
The Vicious Circle Principle/Fallacy
Consider the following Statements:
Do I speak English?
I know nothing.
All propositions are true or false.
Vicious Circle Principle/Fallacy
When we consider the first statement:
“Do I speak English?”
It seems to answer itself. After all, the question is
asserted in English. Therefore, it seems that the
answer is given by the very act of speaking it.
The Imaginary Skeptic
Consider the second assertion:
“I know nothing.”
Clearly we could ask:
“Do you not know that you know nothing?”
And of course this imaginary skeptic would. And we could conclude that their
assertion “I know nothing.” Is false, because they in fact know something. The
fact that they know that they know nothing seems refutes the assertion:
“I know Nothing”.
The Vicious Circle Principle
However, these judgments would
be premature.
The Vicious Circle Principle
Consider the classic formulation of the Law of
Excluded Middle:
“All propositions are true or false.”
Does the scope of “All propositions…” include the proposition “All
propositions are true or false”?
Clearly a designation of “all propositions..” would indeed seem to include
“All propositions are true or false.” And we would ask: Is the law of
excluded middle true or false? Or always true? If it is always true, it is
refuted by the proposition “All propositions are true or false.” And
therefore self-refuted.
Vicious Circle Principle
But as Russell rightly pointed out:
“Take for example, the law of excluded middle, in the
form “All propositions are true or false.” If from this law
we argue that, because the law of excluded middle is a
proposition, therefore the law of excluded middle is true
or false, we incur a vicious-circle fallacy. “All
propositions” must be in some way limited before it
becomes a legitimate totality.”
Vicious Circle Principle
It is indeed proper to include in “All
propositions…” the proposition “All
propositions are true or false.” This is the
vicious circle principle. However, to use the
vicious circle principle as a refutation, is
committing the vicious circle fallacy.
Vicious Circle Fallacy
Therefore, when Matt Slick uses the following
assertions:
If all truth is relative, then the statement "All
truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is
absolutely true, then not all things are relative;
and the statement that "All truth is relative" is
false.
Vicious Circle fallacy
And:
The statement "There are no absolute truths" is
an absolute statement which is supposed to be
true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth; and
"There are no absolute truths" is false.
Vicious Circle Fallacy
Matt Slick is using the vicious-circle principle as a
refutation.
Thus, Matt Slick is committing the
vicious-circle fallacy.
Vicious Circle Fallacy
Similarly, when Matt Slick says:
“How can you show the law of non-contradiction is false without
referring to the law of non-contradiciton. If you do, it is selfrefuting.”
He is committing the vicious-circle fallacy again. It
is not self refuting.
It is only “self refuting” when you employ (to use
Russell’s term) “illegitimate totalities”.
Vicious Circle Fallacy: The Next Step
And now we will take the next step and
show that if Matt Slick is indeed
legitimate in this usage, his “selfrefuting” technique destroys all of his
“universal laws of logic”.
Vicious Circle Fallacy: CARM “universal laws of logic”
Consider the following assertions by
Matt Slick, and applying his own
“self refutation” technique (which in
fact is a fallacy):
Vicious Circle Fallacy; CARM “universal laws of logic”
The law of identity states that A is A. and
The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either
true or false.
We ask: “is the ‘Law of identity’ a proposition?
And it certainly is.
We then ask; So does the “Law of excluded middle” apply to the
“Law of Identity”?
Vicious Circle Fallacy: CARM “universal laws of logic”
We then proceed to ask:
”Can the “Law of identity” be true or false? Or
can it only be true?
If it can only be true, then the “Law of Identity”
cannot be true or false, and is thus, (using the
vicious-circle fallacy) refuted by the “Law of
Excluded Middle”.
Vicious Circle Fallacy: Conclusion
We can make the same claim for his “Universal
Law of non-contradiction” and his “Law of
Excluded middle”. That is, it violates the Law of
Excluded Middle (excusing Matt Slick's poor
wording of the law). Therefore, they are all refuting
each other, or are self refuting.
Viciousl Circle Fallacy: Epilog
But let us not forget, by using the Vicious
Circle principle as a refutation we are
committing the Vicious Circle Fallacy. Just
as Matt Slick does when he asserts “it is
self-refuting”.
For more information:

WWW.viciouscircleprinciple.com

WWW.mattslickfallacies.com

WWW.camfallacies.com

WWW.whycarmsucks.com