Quotes:
Argument from Silence
Witty quotations:
when someone states that the absence of evidence is itself evidence for the
contrary.
see more about this fallacy here:
“The hammer that shatters glass also forges steel”
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/from_ignorance.htm
“a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”- D Hocking 1997
Bandwagon fallacy
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/04/a-matter-of-a-fewdegrees?lang=eng
http://www.philosophybasics.com/general_quotes.html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/category/greek_philosopher.html
Two premises:
1.
2.
3.
Everyone is doing it
The majority is typically right
So, If I do it, I will be in the majority and will be right (for the
most part)
“When phrased like this, few people would say that they'd fall for such a
stupid thing - but it's still a remarkably easy trap to fall into, precisely because
people don't realise that it's a bandwagon that they're jumping on. In a manner
similar to the Matthew effect[wp], something that gains attention (legitimately
A little description of the 4 in 1, Bait and Switch tactic:
or otherwise) will attract more interest. This interest generates more interest,
like an internet meme circulating around internet forums, and before you know
Let me illustrate to you what I view this fallacy involves which is actually 4
it everyone is on the bandwagon shouting "yee haw!!" While this is merely just
fallacies used together sequentially as 1. I have put the fallacies in quotation how information tends to propagate, the bandwagon argument truly becomes
marks to identify each of the 4 fallacies that compose what is called the “Bait fallacious when people use it as an excuse to say that an issue is important or
and Switch” (commonly used to commit financial fraud today.) But for now, we that the circulating opinion must be correct.”
will define it the way I see it being used, but correct me if I am wrong:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bandwagon_argument
“the audience is baited (a classic “straw manning” of the only weakness that
can be found), then a switch is made (using the weakest argument as a “red appeal to the populous
herring” to avoid having to answer the harder more thought provoking
evidences in any given post, or link.) It sounds like this person is refuting the
appeal to common practice
argument, but essence they are picking and choosing small pieces that are
irrelevant to my posts (“non sequitur”)while committing a 4th fallacy of rational
appeal to tradition
debate: “poisoning the well.”
appeal to common belief
Argument from Assertion
appeal to novelty (newer is better)
when they do not source their arguments with valid citations, When someone (see more here:
is using unqualified sources to debunk a professional in the field.
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.
htm
that's not science. It’s on par with a dentist doing geological expeditions.
It’s basically an argument from assertion. Because none of the sources are
valid.
Shifting the Burden of Proof
many people shift the burden of proof, even Christians.
so your entire argument is a fallacy of an argument from assertion, and
furthermore commits the fallacy of an argument from ignorance as well.
see more about this fallacy here:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/assertion.htm
that’s why we must all appeal to common logic, and honesty. We don't learn to
think rationally by general classwork, we must train our minds to be rational.
It’s a discipline we must undergo.
I cannot prove God exists, but I can make a compelling case for His existence.
But to say, you can't disprove his existence, is simply shifting the burden of
proof.
Illegitimate Totality Transfer-taking all the synonyms of a lexicon on a
greek work and applying it to one passage….aka…the amplified Bible.
under the refuting arguments section of a (nonpartisan site about logic) it says “What does Illegitimate Totality Transfer mean? This is a big word in biblical
"In a formal argument, the primary arguer must establish a ...case (that stands interpretation with an easy definition. Illegitimate Totality Transfer simply
on its own) and thus carries the burden of proof.
means to illegitimately ( wrongly) transfer a word’s total possible meaning, with
The opponent only needs to show that the case is not proven to win the
all its variations and nuances, and forcing them all into a particular context.
argument"
For example, if one were to do a word study on the Greek word phile, one
above quote from:
would find that it could mean “affection, friendship, love, or kiss.” The context
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/refuting_arg
must decide. The illegitimate totality transfer occurs when one forces all of
ument.htm
these meanings into one passage, without consideration of which nuance best
fits the context. This is a common interpretive fallacy.[1]
One particular version of bible is famous for doing this fallacy, the Amplified
Bible. In more solid bibles such as the NASB, EVS, NKJV, & KJV the
translators do not entrap themselves in this fallacy. Instead they follow correct
Examples: Evolution is true because everyone believes it. Truth is not made biblical hermeneutical”
on the basis of the popular vote. OR Evolution is true because the majority of
scientists are evolutionists: This is an appeal to authority, and just because a [1] http://www.empoweredbychrist.org/illegitimate-totality-transfer.html#_ftn1
scientist believes it does not make evolution 100% correct. For example
scientists believed in spontaneous generation for many years, or blood letting
Above quote in entirety from the website above.
for example. So the appeal to authority is a fallacy. Something is true based
on it’s scientific data, not on how many believe it.
Changing the bars- Removing the bars is not changing the bars. For
example if I have a burden of proof where the burden is too great and I decide
Cut off the nose to spite the face:
to strike it from the record. It’s not changing the bars. But if someone asks for
evidence or questions a certain fact of a view, and they then modify the view
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/cut-off- to avoid the specific criticism, and not address it. This is changing the Bars.
your-nose-to-spite-your-face
Appeal to authority and Appeal to the populous:
Word Salad: a bunch of random words, often unintelligible.
Text Wall: , or wall of text: no paragraphs, and or a large body of text
with many grammatical errors.
Cognitive DissonanceCognitive Dissonance
“”If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.”
—Unknown
“”Everything is a boomerang if you throw it upwards.”
—Unknown
“This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding
“Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed
two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.
upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they
have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a
Dissonance increases with:
desperate bid to save face. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the
standards can eventually evolve[1] into something that cannot be met no
1. The importance of the subject to us.
matter what (or anything will meet said standard if the losing side is trying to
2. How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
meet the standard using this tactic). Usually such a tactic is spotted quickly."
3. Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.”
above quote from:
Above quote from:
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.ht http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
m
I say repeatedly:,
1.
2.
3.
"you have to be willing to be wrong."
"you have to be willing to change."
"if you can't do the above then debate is not for you"
also known as “moving the goalposts, or lowering the goalposts or bar”
can be used in correlation to other fallacies such as “appeal to the
populous”, or “or appeal to common belief”:
“Appeal to Common Belief: If others believe it to be true, it must be true.”
And I exhort myself, we all have preconceived ideas of what truth is, but many http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/common_belief.htm
times it is simply clouded with self interest.
Gamblers Fallacy – chance can be predicted
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/gamblers_fallac False Arguments from Ignorance/personal incredulity:
y.htm
Example: Quantum Mechanics is confusing, therefore it’s untrue.
Ad hominem and abusive Ad hominem:
This is a common misconception regarding a lot of things, However:
do you recognize any of these fallacies?:
"Suppose you fail to turn in your homework in math class and you get an "F"
 A lawyer attacking a defendant’s character rather than addressing or for the day? Could you go to the teacher and claim she is being unfair
questioning based on the case, e.g., in a case of theft pointing out because you might very well know the homework answers but she just cannot
see them in your head.”
the defendant’s level of poverty.
 A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign
when asked about a specific policy, e.g. “Well, I think we need to
Just because one does not mentally see the picture of what was said, does
look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.”
not mean that it is untrue this is the fallacy of personal incredulity, or an
 Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs. argument from ignorance.
 Using someone’s known background or beliefs to respond in a way
such as “Of course you would say that, because you believe _____.” Equivocation: "evolution" has six meanings. (see notes on Hovind)
 Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her
religious beliefs, such as, “Perhaps if you weren’t part of the
Evolutionists often commit the fallacy of equivocation on the word
religious group that you are, you would see this quite differently.”
evolution. This word has a number of meanings. Evolution can mean
 Demeaning a teacher’s decision on grading by insulting her
“change” in a general sense, but it can also refer to the idea that
intelligence, e.g., “Well, it’s not like you graduated from the best
organisms share a common ancestor. Either meaning is perfectly
school, so I can see why you wouldn’t know how to properly grade a legitimate, but the two meanings should not be conflated within an
writing assignment.”
argument. Many evolutionists seem to think that by demonstrating
 Using racial slurs to demean a person of another race in an
evolution in the sense of “change,” that it proves evolution in the
argument about a crime involving people of different racial
sense of “common descent.”
backgrounds, such as, “People like you don’t understand what it’s
like to be of my race so you blatantly have no right to make an
argument about this situation.”
Fallacy of equivocation
 Generalizing views of a political party as an insulting argument to an
individual who is a member of a different party, e.g., “Well, it’s pretty The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there.
obvious that your political party doesn’t know how to be fiscally
responsible, so I wouldn’t expect you to, either.”
Above quote from:
 Stating that one’s age precludes him from being able to make an
intelligent or meaningful argument, such as, “You are clearly just too
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/equiv.htm
young to understand.”
 Asserting that someone’s geographical location prevents him from
being able to make a clear judgment, such as, “You’ve only ever
lived in an urban environment. The issues of those in other areas is
You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong
clearly beyond you.”
 Using gender as a means to devalue an argument from an opposing because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are
gender, e.g., “This is a female issue. As a man, how can you have constantly changing and adapting to their environment.”
an opinion about this?”
 Stating that the ethnicity of the opposing individual keeps him from “Consider for example the English word bow – this could mean many different
formulating a valuable opinion, e.g., “You are from the United
things depending on its context. One meaning is a weapon, another is the
States, so you could never understand what it’s like to live in a
front of a ship, still another is the decoration on a gift, and the fourth is to bend
country like that.”
at the waist. Not only are the definitions radically different, but it can also be
used as a noun and as a verb.”- Douglas hamp - the first six days chapter 5
 Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and
degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish
high school - how could you possibly know about this?”
 Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an
Non Sequitur: "Doesn't follow." Notice that many
opposing individual’s opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand times in debates when a particular perspective has no contributing
since you have never had to struggle."
premises anymore, or supporting facts, they will resort to a certain
amount of word fillers (time wasters.) In order to fill in the time
gap during the debate, where they lack real factual support, or have
above examples from :
exhausted theirs. They typically have used terminology not as a means of
relaying true information, but as a means of committing a fallacy of an
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/ad-hominem-examples.html
appeal to authority of sorts. I do this too, but it is dishonest in
debate. It is best to define terms implicitly and not as a result of
Cognitive dissidence
showing off vocabulary to distinguish ones authority of lack of
authority. Simply knowing terminology does not in fact prove ones
The mental trauma regarding contradiction in your mind, and the real world, authority. It may simply mean that one may like reading dictionaries
and your bodies psychological response to it.-gl
in his spare time. These fallacies may overlap with a Red Herring,
Dependent on if the person is willfully doing this or not.
exist; everything is relative; there are no absolutes; it’s all a matter of opinion;
The Fallacy of Begging the question, more commonly known as "circular
reason," or arbitrary logic:
you ought not judge; religion is about faith, not facts! Perhaps Augustine was
When I was reading a book on logic sold by Ken Ham ministries it said this:
"In order to determine the truth value of a statement, it is necessary
to go outside the statement." - Introductory Logic- by D. J. Wilson,
and J. B. Nance - 2002 by mars hill textbooks.
An example of this is: “Evolution is true because it is scientific”
right when he said that we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it
when it convicts us. Maybe we can’t handle the truth.
-Geisler, N. L., & Turek, F. (2004). I Don't Have Enough Faith
to Be an Atheist. Crossway Books.
It begs the question as to what legitimate science is. Especially in relation to
Evolution. In other words it presupposes evolution is scientific without laying Circular and arbitrary arguments are not useful because anyone who
denies the conclusion would also deny the premise (since the
out the argument why it is scientific.
conclusion is essentially the same as the premise).
So, the argument,
Self-Defeating Argumentation:
“Evolution must be true because it is a fact,”
A mechanics apprentice in training (possibly dyslexic) was unbolting a piece of
equipment at a tomato cannery in California.
-while technically valid, is fallacious because the arguer has merely assumed
what he is trying to prove.
This guy would loosen the bolt with his right hand. His arm would get tired so
He’d switch arms. But Instead of loosening it he would tighten it. His arm
again we must go OUTSIDE the statement to declare it true.
would get tired so He’d switch arms again. He would start loosening again.
And He did this several times, before the Mechanic lead pointed it out. The Arbitrary assumptions are not to be used
guy that told me about that story, still laughs about it. But it’s a perfect
in logical reasoning because we could equally well assume the exact
example of circular reasoning and a decent example self-defeating actions: opposite. It would be just as legitimate to argue,
“Evolution cannot
The faster he worked the faster he undid what he had done already. The
harder he worked, the harder he undid his work. Because in essence, he was be true because it is false.”
fighting himself.
Josh McDowell once pointed out that using the Bible to quote the Bible is
thought of as circular reasoning by many. But McDowell responds “who ever
Self-Defeating arguments at their clearest. (spotting logic that simply selftold you the Bible was one book.” Many assume because it is abridged, that is
destructs on its own without any refutation on your part).
is one book. The Bible is not just one book; it's actually sixty-six books written
by 40 authors, on two different continents, in three different languages, by 40
(for example picking oneself up by their own bootstrap is an example of
authors, and over a period of 1600 years.
circular reasoning, one must remove the boot before the strap becomes a
useful lifting device, otherwise it is quite circular, and self defeating as well, as
one is fighting against oneself)See, you can use whatever rules you want in Using the Bible to prove the Bible is not Circular reasoning, as long as the
debate, just make sure you apply it to both sides of the debate, not just one quotes come from separate books of the Bible, and preferably separate
authors.
side.
For example one I debated a guy who said “God of the Bible is evil,”
But later confessed He didn’t really believe in absolute moral truth.
But He was absolutely sure about the moral truth of God’s inherent evil.
He didn’t apply the same rule to both sides of the debate.
My favorite author once said this, and rightly so:
“Although few would admit it, our rejection of
religious and moral truth is often on volitional rather than intellectual
grounds—we just don’t want to be held accountable to any moral
standards or religious doctrine. So we blindly accept the self-defeating
truth claims of politically correct intellectuals who tell us that truth does not
It should also be noted that there are certain special cases where
circular reasoning is unavoidable and not necessarily fallacious.
Remember that begging the question is not invalid; it is considered
fallacious because it is arbitrary. But what if it were not arbitrary?
There are some situations where the conclusion of an argument must be
assumed at the outset, but is not arbitrary.2 Here is an example:
Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
We can make an argument.
Therefore, there must be laws of logic.
This argument is perfectly reasonable, and valid. But it is subtly
circular. This argument is using a law of logic called modus tollens
to prove that there are laws of logic. So, we have tacitly assumed
what we are trying to prove. But it is absolutely unavoidable in this
case. We must use laws of logic to prove anything—even the existence
of laws of logic.
However, the above argument is not arbitrary. We do have a good reason
for assuming laws of logic, since without them we couldn’t prove
anything. And perhaps most significantly, anyone attempting to
disprove the existence of laws of logic would have to first assume
that laws of logic do exist in order to make the argument. He would
refute himself.
evolution-101-begging-question]LOGICAL
FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION 101: BEGGING THE QUESTION | Creation
Moments[/url]
Most of the examples of circular reasoning used by evolutionists are
of the fallacious begging-the-question variety—they are arbitrary.
Consider the evolutionist who argues:
A site that has some user friendly definitions of fallacy, from an
illustrative point of view:
“The Bible cannot be correct because it says that stars were
created in a single day; but we now know that it takes millions of
years for stars to form.”
By assuming that stars form over millions of years, the critic has
taken for granted that they were not supernaturally created. He has
tacitly assumed the Bible is wrong in his attempt to argue that the
Bible is wrong; he has begged the question. Another example is:
“We know evolution must have happened, because we are here!”
This argument begs the question, since the way we got here is the very
point in question.
Watch for arguments that subtly presume (in an arbitrary way) what the
critic is attempting to prove. In particular, evolutionists will often
take for granted the assumptions of naturalism, uniformitarianism,
strict empiricism (the notion that all truth claims are answered by
observation and experimentation), and sometimes evolution itself. But,
of course, these are the very claims at issue. When an evolutionist
takes these things for granted, he is not giving a good logical reason
for his position; he is simply arbitrarily asserting his position."
above clip from:
"Strawman: attack a weak argument used by the other person"
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/strawman.htm
in other words a strawman fallacy is using the weakest point, attacking and
focusing on it alone, without addressing the other more substantiated claims.
This in essence is setting up a strawman to easily knock down, while ignoring
the other points, basically dodging the important points while having the
perception of actually addressing the argument, but is not addressing the main
points at all.
Other anger fallacies and relevance fallacies:
"anger: using anger as a weapon"
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/anger.htm
"appeal to ridicule: mocking the other persons claim"
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_ridicule.htm
"attack the person: Distracting... from their argument"
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/attack_person.htm
"poisoning the well: discrediting the person..."
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/poisoning_well.htm
“Appeal to Common Belief: If others believe it to be true, it must be true.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/17/logical-fallacies-begginghttp://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/common_belief.htm
the-question]Logical
Fallacies: The Fallacy of Begging the Question - Answers in
Genesis
or yet another fallacy: below from creationmoments.com
" A very common example of this comes in the form of, "There wasn't
enough water in the Biblical Flood to cover all the mountains" or
"Where did all the water go?"
What they are asserting is that there wasn't enough water to cover the
present-day mountains. This is fallacious because they are presuming
evolutionary time scales for the rates of the mountains forming – that
is, millions of years. This means that the mountains we have today
would have been nearly identical in height just 4,500 years ago at the
time of the Flood. This is begging the question because the premise of
their argument assumes long ages are true in order to argue that long
ages are true (and, thus, that the Flood could not have happened).
If, as creationists say, the mountains we have today formed rapidly,
starting during the Flood, then there is no problem with the amount of
water we have today covering the Earth. Thus, the Flood account only
seems inconsistent if you don't use all of the Flood model's premises.
Taken together, the Flood model explains consistently the evidence we
have in the geologic record.
above clip from
[url=http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/blog/201207/logical-fallacies-
“Appeal to Authority: Referencing an 'expert'.”
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htm
Biased Sample: see Unrepresentative Sample:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/unrepresentative_sam
ple.htm
Basically cherry picking one fact over another fact of equal authenticity, simply
because of its conformity to one view or another. Typical of biased, single
minded argumentation.
“Style over Substance: An attractive presentation makes it more right.”
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/style_substance.htm
“Appeal to Emotion: If it feels good, it must be true.”
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_emotion.htm
“Appeal to Pity: Going for the sympathy vote.”
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_pity.htm
“Argument from Ignorance: Accepting circumstantial evidence.”
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/from_ignorance.htm
all above quotes from:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies.htm
under the subtopics of “attack fallacies, and relevance fallacies.”
Also last but not least:
A whole list of appeals: appeals to popular opinion, appeals to emotion,
appeals to pity, appeals to authority, or populous, etc etc:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/a_appeal.htm
(From the Burden of Proof fallacy (shifting))
MOST ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS- FALLACY OF ASSUMPTION:
Under the refuting arguments section of a (nonpartisan site about logic) it says
"In a formal argument, the primary arguer must establish a ...case (that stands
on its own) and thus carries the burden of proof.
The opponent only needs to show that the case is not proven to win the
argument"
“Woodmorappe, like most of all YEC'ers, is a liar for Jesus.”-again, this is a fallacy of assumption.
see at most all we can prove is someone is wrong factually.
but saying someone is a liar, means we know that they are in fact out to
willfully deceive.
Which again is subjective to knowing their thoughts on an individual level.
So technically your statement is a lie. I am not saying that you yourself are
one, simply what is said.
again calling someone a liar, means that you as a person, can read minds,
and know innately that that person is trying to willfully deceive.
above quote from:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/refuting_arg
ument.htm
Once an argument has been given with supporting premises, you can proceed
to the next thing.
below from basic textbook in logic From the introductory LOGIC textbook
from mars hill series by Douglas J. Wilson and James B. Nance,
mars hill textbook series, canon press, Moscow Idaho, 2002.
Now close friends and family can sense lies in young children, but that again
takes a personal acquaintance of the person, and to calibrate what a true
statement, and mistaken statement, and a statement to deceive is, and litigate
all of those terms and come to a conclusion.
So in conclusion I believe your statement is self refuting, as it was made out of When the student of logic examines an argument, the
a willful intent to ridicule, or mock, which means that you knew what you were
first thing they should look for is validity. We say that an argument is valid if
doing when posting it.
the
so in doing this you reveal the lie.
conclusion is necessarily true given that the premises are true. In other
you must have known that you can't have an innate knowledge of all people words,
personally, especially a personal knowledge of "most all of YEC'ers" as that
would be a personal conversational knowledge of thousands, if not millions of if the premises are true, and the argument is valid, then the conclusion
individuals.
so your statement is not only sincerely mistaken on a few points but due to the has to be true. If an argument has true premises and a false conclusion,
appeal to ridicule, you at that point made a logical error, and in so doing
we know it is invalid. In a valid argument, the premises may be false. But if
upgraded the statement from a sincerely mistaken phrase to a lie.
they were true, the conclusion would have to be true also. Here is an example
of a valid argument. One of the premises happens to be false, but the
so your statement above commits the same lie that it criticizes in others.
argument remains valid.
which is self defeating, and not a valid statement.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2H0G5NCQI591U/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl
?ie=UTF8&asin=0932766579&cdForum=Fx3FL8XGQ4KPSFO&cdMsgID=Mx
2K4YFL9TS1XFA&cdMsgNo=79&cdPage=8&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3IP Given the fact that all dogs are brown, and that all poodles are dogs, it follows
YZQX9ZZ13X&store=books#Mx2K4YFL9TS1XFA
necessarily that all poodles are brown.
If it were in fact true that all dogs were brown, then all poodles would
necessarily be brown. The problem with the argument is the falsehood of the
first premise, not the structure of the argument. To test for validity, grant
Now another form of deception in debate is called the “Bait and Switch” I
provisional “truth” to the premises, and then see if the conclusion would have
believe the roots of this tactic are in white collar crime syndicates, but debates
to
do this all the time. Let me post a link on one recent case where this crime
was committed:
be true.
http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/brown-sues-22-midas-shops-block-bait-and-switchauto-repair-scam
Here is an example of an invalid argument, with all true premises, and a true
conclusion.
Rational Argumentation:
Given the fact that all dogs are mammals, and that all dogs are canines,
it follows necessarily that all canines are mammals
In this argument, the premises are true, the argument is valid, so the
conclusion is therefore true. This is a sound argument. The different types
of arguments related to validity and truth can thus be
arranged as shown in figure 2 below:
Figure 1
. Both of the above premises are true, and the conclusion is also true. But,
if you examine it carefully, you will see that the conclusion is not
implied by the premises (substituting the word animals for canines makes
this clear). It is this lack of implication which makes the argument invalid.
Once an argument has been examined for validity (and it is found to be valid),
the argument may then be examined with a view toward the truth or falsehood
Figure 2
of the conclusion. If the argument is invalid, then there is
no reason to proceed further. But if it is found to be valid,
Above from basic textbook in logic From the introductory LOGIC textbook
from mars hill series by Douglas J. Wilson and James B. Nance,
it is still necessary to examine the truth of the premises. If they are found to
be true,
mars hill textbook series, canon press, Moscow Idaho, 2002.
then the conclusion must be true as well. If an argument is valid and the
premises are true, it is called a sound argument. You should realize,
then that the conclusion of a sound argument must be true.
Do not confuse truth with validity!
Once we learn the basic rules of formal logic, it is easy to see how
prevalent this confusion is. In public debate, the applause is frequently
reserved, not for those who reason well, but for those with whom the
audience agrees. Unfortunately, this is a common problem in the church.
Here is a final example where the premises are true, and the
conclusion is necessarily true.
Given the fact that all Christians are forgiven, and that the apostle Paul was a
Christian,
it follows that the apostle Paul was forgiven.
and other rules of basic logic:
Reductio ad absurdum: Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to
absurdity"), also known as
argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument from absurdity), is a common
form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true
by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its
denial. (like prophecy : J Mcdowell)
An example of erosion that is absurd....
Devils Tower is dated at
over 50 Ma and supposedly has been subjected to erosion
for millions of years. Why hasn't erosion reduced Devils
Tower down to a small igneous knob by now? There have
been millions of freeze-thaw cycles over the 50 million year
period in eastern Wyoming to loosen the rock. On the other
hand, if the igneous rock is so resistant, is there enough
talus at the base of Devils Tower to account for millions of
years of erosion, similar to what is seen on the Colorado
Plateau?
above from creationontheweb.com
[URL="http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_258278.pdf"]http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j10_2/j10_2_258278.pdf[/URL]
in other words, for the millions of years of erosion history, there is
very little evidence of "talus" or "fallen rock debris" at the base
of the monument. The only possible answer to this is according to the
national park pamphlet "the river carried them away". However I
noticed that the slope of the ground going away from the monument is a
20% grade for about a thousand foot, falls off a short bluff then goes
a few hundred more feet on relatively 0-5% grade before it hits the
closest river access (more than 1200 feet horozontally from the rock
fall area). Thats almost a quarter mile of rolling through trees,
amongst which several hundred feet are zero grade!. Exhibit A:
Notice in the pictures that the rocks of devils tower are all within a
hundred feet or so of the base.
nearest river entrance.
Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) and Law of un-falsifiability (LNC)
LEM and LNC examples by Aristotle Himself
(from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
[IMG]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ruralimagecoop.org/w
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/
p-content/uploads/2011/04/DevilsTower.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ruralimagecoop.org/tag/devilstower/&h=475&w=708&sz=73&tbnid=gKABdtVrtIThOM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=136&
zoom=1&usg=__KFnO_ZPqmjzMCdqigTJF9lpo79s=&docid=gmncrQOfhe7Zt
M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2ktOUdGACqj9iwLjmIHwAw&ved=0CGEQ9QEwBw&dur= (2a) There will be a sea-battle tomorrow.
687[/IMG]
(2b) There will not be a sea-battle tomorrow.
here is just one picture of the rock in question:
[URL="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ruralimagecoop.org/
wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DevilsClearly, (2a) and (2b) cannot both be true; LNC applies to future contingents
Tower.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ruralimagecoop.org/tag/devilsas
tower/&h=475&w=708&sz=73&tbnid=gKABdtVrtIThOM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=136&
zoom=1&usg=__KFnO_ZPqmjzMCdqigTJF9lpo79s=&docid=gmncrQOfhe7Zt
M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2ktOUdGACqj9iwLjmIHwAw&ved=0CGEQ9QEwBw&dur= straightforwardly as to any other pair of contradictories. But what of LEM?
687"]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ruralimagecoop.org/wp Here
-content/uploads/2011/04/Devilsis where the difficulties begin, culminating in the passage with which Aristotle
Tower.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ruralimagecoop.org/tag/devilstower/&h=475&w=708&sz=73&tbnid=gKABdtVrtIThOM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=136&
zoom=1&usg=__KFnO_ZPqmjzMCdqigTJF9lpo79s=&docid=gmncrQOfhe7Zt concludes and (apparently) summarizes his account:
M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2ktOUdGACqj9iwLjmIHwAw&ved=0CGEQ9QEwBw&dur=
687[/URL]
It is necessary for there to be or not to be a sea-battle tomorrow;
Freeze thaw cycles typically found in yosemite will crack solid granite. "Areas
with a moist temperate climate are subjected to frequent freeze and thaw
cycles. Freeze-thaw cycles affect rocks because when water seeps into
cracks in a rock and then freezes it expands putting tremendous pressure (24
tons per ft2) on the rock, forcing the cracks to expand. Over time this type of
physical weathering can cause even the strongest rocks to break apart. "
above quote
from:[url]http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/hazards/mass_wasting.cfm[/url]
but it not necessary for a sea-battle to take place tomorrow, nor
for one not to take place—though it is necessary for one to take
place or not to take place. So, since statements are true
according to how the actual things are, it is clear that wherever
these are such as to allow of contraries as chance has it, the
we know crook county had a lot of blizzards and freezing weather:
same necessarily holds for the contradictories also. This
[url]http://www.crookcounty.wy.gov/departments/emergency_management/doc happens with things that are not always so or are not always
s/Chapt__15___Winter_Storms.pdf[/url]
not so. With these it is necessary for one or the other of the
contradictories to be true or false—not, however, this one or
It is relatively impossible for a rock to fly over trees on a 20%
grade, down a bluff, pick of momentum to roll another 300-350 feet all
on its own into a river, once again to be swept by the fierce waters
downstream. Which is its own absurd gesture that I will not get
into.
I am suggesting the rocks will fall where they may, namely at the base
of the monument, not 1300' removed. (I have a topo map of the area if
you are interested in the amount of feet from the drop zone to the
that one, but as chance has it; or for one to be true rather
than the other, yet not already true or false. Clearly, then it
is not necessary that of every affirmation and opposite
negation one should be true and the other false. For what holds
for things that are does not hold for things that are not but
may possibly be or not be; with these it is as we
have said. (Aristotle, De Interpretatione 19a30-b4)
Even if we accept the view that Aristotle is uncomfortable with
assigning truth (or falsity) to (2a) and (2b), their disjunction in (3a)
is clearly seen as true, and indeed as necessarily true. But the
modal operator must be taken to apply to the disjunction as a
whole as in (3b) and not to each disjunct as in (3c).
(3a) Either there will be or there will not
be a sea-battle tomorrow.
(3b) □ (Φ ∨ ¬Φ)
(3c) □ Φ ∨ □ ¬Φ
inappropriate—misleading, badly pronounced, wrongly focused, likely to
induce unwanted implicatures or presuppositions, overly or insufficiently
formal in register. Only in the first of these cases, as a toggle between truth
and falsity, is it clear that contradictory negation is involved (Horn 1989,
Smiley 1993). Sainsbury (2004) takes truth-functional contradictory negation
to be a special case of a generalized option negation as a deselection
operator: If there are two mutually exhaustive and exclusive options A and B,
to select A is to deselect B. But the relevant options may involve not truth, but
some other aspect of utterance form or meaning as in the standard examples
of metalinguistic negation (Horn 1989): “That's not a car, it's a Volkswagen”,
“Cancer selection is not a but the major force in the emergence of complex
animal life”, “He's not your old man, he's your father”, “We didn't call the
POlice, we called the poLICE”. In such cases, the relevant target for
deselection is what the right thing is to say in a particular context, where “truth
is not sufficient for being right, and may not even be necessary” (Sainsbury
2004: 87). Thus the apparent LNC violation (if it's a Volkswagen, it both is and
isn't a car) is not a real one.
Given that not every apparent sentential negation is contradictory, is every
contradictory negation sentential? Within propositional logic, contradictory
negation is a self-annihilating operator: ¬(¬Φ) is equivalent to Φ. This is
explicitly recognized in the proto-Fregean Stoic logic of Alexander of
Aphrodisias: “‘Not: not: it is day’ differs from ‘it is day’ only in manner of
speech” (Mates 1953: 126). The Stoics' apophatikon directly prefigures the
iterating and self-cancelling propositional negation of Frege and Russell. As
Frege puts it (1919: 130), “Wrapping up a thought in double negation does not
alter its truth value.” The corresponding linguistic principle is expressed in the
grammarians' bromide, “Duplex negatio affirmat.”
For Aristotle, LNC is understood primarily not as the principle of propositional
logic that no statement can be true simultaneously with its negation, but as a Not all systems of propositional logic accept a biconditional law of double
prima facie rejection of the possibility that any predicate F could both hold and negation (LDN), ¬(¬Φ) ≡ Φ. In particular, LDN, along with LEM, is not valid for
not hold of a given subject (at the same time, and in the same respect). A full the Intuitionists, who reject ¬(¬Φ) → Φ while accepting its converse, Φ →
rendering of the version of LNC appearing at Metaphysics 1006b33–34—“It is ¬(¬Φ). But the very possibility of applying negation to a negated statement
not possible to truly say at the same time of a thing that it is a man and that it presupposes the analysis of contradictory negation as an iterative operator
is not a man”—would require a representation involving operators for modality (one capable of applying to its own output), or as a function whose domain is
and truth and allowing quantification over times.[5] In the same way, LEM is not identical to its range. Within the categorical term-based logic of Aristotle and
actually the principle that every statement is either true or has a true negation, his Peripatetic successors, every statement—whether singular or general—is
of subject-predicate form. Contradictory negation is not a one-place operator
but the law that for any predicate F and any entity x, x either is F or isn't F.
taking propositions into propositions, but rather a mode of predication, a way
of combining subjects with predicates: a given predicate can be either affirmed
But these conceptualizations of LNC and LEM must be generalized, since the
or denied of a given subject. Unlike the apophatikon or propositional negation
principle that it is impossible for a to be F and not to be F will not apply to
connective introduced by the Stoics and formalized in Fregean and Russellian
statements of arbitrary complexity. We can translate the Aristotelian language,
logic, Aristotelian predicate denial, while toggling truth and falsity and yielding
with some loss of faithfulness, into the standard modern propositional versions
the semantics of contradictory opposition, does not apply to its own output and
in (4a,b) respectively, ignoring the understood modal and temporal
hence does not syntactically iterate. In this respect, predicate denial both
modifications:
anticipates the form of negation in Montague Grammar and provides a more
plausible representation of contradictory negation in natural language, whether
(4a) LNC: ¬(Φ ∧ ¬Φ)
Ancient Greek or English, where reflexes of the iterating one-place connective
(4b) LEM: Φ ∨ ¬Φ
of the Stoics and Fregeans (“Not: not: the sun is shining”) are hard to find
outside of artificial constructs like the “it is not the case” construction (Horn
Taking LNC and LEM together, we obtain the result that exactly one
1989, §7.2). In a given natural language, contradictory negation may be
proposition of the pair {Φ, ¬Φ} is true and exactly one is false, where ¬
expressed as a particle associated with a copula or a verb, as an inflected
represents contradictory negation.
auxiliary verb, as a verb of negation, or as a negative suffix or prefix.
Alternatively, the laws can be recast semantically as in (5), again setting aside In addition, there is a widespread pragmatically motivated tendency for a
the usual qualifications:
formal contradictory negation to be strengthened to a semantic or virtual
contrary through such processes as litotes (“I don't like prunes” conveying that
I dislike prunes) and so-called neg(ative) raising (“I don't think that Φ”
(5a) LNC: No proposition may be simultaneously true and false.
conveying “I think that ¬Φ”). Similarly, the prefixal negation in such adjectives
(5b) LEM: Every proposition must be either true or false.
as “unhappy” or “unfair” is understood as a contrary rather than contradictory
(not-Adj) of its base. These phenomena have been much discussed by
3. Contradictory Negation in Term and Propositional Logic
rhetoricians, logicians, and linguists (see Horn 1989: Chap. 5).
Not every natural language negation is a contradictory operator, or even a
logical operator. A statement may be rejected as false, as unwarranted, or as
In addition to predicate denial, in which a predicate F is denied of a subject a,
Aristotelian logic allows for narrow-scope predicate term negation, in which a
negative predicate not-F is affirmed of a. The relations of predicate denial and
predicate term negation to a simple affirmative proposition (and to each other)
can be schematized on a generalized square of opposition for singular (nonquantified) expressions (De Interpretatione 19b19–30, Prior Analytics Chapter
46):
(above from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/