Logical fallacies high jack discussion

[OzSpen]

Over the last 10 years, I have participated in 6 Christian forums worldwide and I've discovered that one of the most common ways to high jack a discussion has been with the use of logical fallacies.

What is a logical fallacy? To put it simply, a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning. It is a way of stating an argument where the the premises given do not support the conclusion in a statement. It is illogic in action. When this happens, it is difficult to have a logical discussion with a person.

I've been greatly helped in understanding the use of logical fallacies by Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a fallacy tutorial. You can find his material on The Nizkor Project site.

I'll mention two fallacies that I see on Christian forum sites:

A. The red herring fallacy

Labossiere explains:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim (Fallacy: Red Herring).

This can happen on Christianity Board when a person, say, is discussing reasons for opposing once-saved-always-saved (OSAS) with Bible verses. A person can reply that that is not what the Bible teaches and then give a group of Bible verses to oppose the person who opposed OSAS. What does this do? It does not deal with the exact verses that a person used to oppose OSAS. The response was off and running with pro-OSAS verses. This is using a red herring fallacy and logical discussion is brought to a halt as the issue is not being dealt with - the verses that oppose OSAS.

Another fallacy that sometimes arises is:

B. The straw man fallacy

Labossiere's explanation is:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person (Fallacy: Straw Man).

I have seen this fallacy from time to time in at least two situations:

• When anti-charismatics try to expose the 'error' of Pentecostals. A false view of Pentecostals is not difficult to construct when one sees extremism in the movement. However, when all Pentecostals are painted with the extremist brush, it is using a straw man fallacy.
• Calvinists who paint all Arminians as Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. This is using a straw man fallacy.

There are a number of other fallacies I've seen used on Christian forums. These have included:

• 
  Ad hominem. Most moderators of Christian forums exclude this fallacy because it most often is a flaming or goading technique.
  
• 
  Begging the question (or circular reasoning). This is where a person reaches a conclusion but it is based on his/her premise. Of course that will be the conclusion reached because the person's presuppositions demand that conclusion.
  
• 
  Appeal to authority;
  
• 
  Genetic fallacy.
  

Do any logical fallacies bother you in discussions with people on CB and other forums? Do you remind them of these fallacies? It is good to know the name and nature of logical fallacies. A professor of IT attends my church and he tells me that it really bothers him how often his students use logical fallacies. He calls them to account for what they do.

Does this topic interest you or not? If so, what say that we watch each other and the fallacies we might use in any responses to this and other threads? What fallacies have you seen committed on CB?

Oz

 

[aspen]

Well, I have run into logical fallacies often, but I have also run into people who cannot have a simple conversation without diagramming posts and labelling them with multiple logical fallacies. It is important to realize that not every thread is a formal debate - just a conversation. The term logical fallacy is used in a formal debate. Also, one person's logical fallacy is another person's authority - the use of scripture is the final authority for some; an appeal to tradition to another. I understand that logic and reason is critical in a discussion, but declaring logical fallacies can be used to deflect - muddy the waters - lol, as well as attempting to get the conversation back on track

 

[OzSpen]

Well, I have run into logical fallacies often, but I have also run into people who cannot have a simple conversation without diagramming posts and labelling them with multiple logical fallacies. It is important to realize that not every thread is a formal debate - just a conversation. The term logical fallacy is used in a formal debate. Also, one person's logical fallacy is another person's authority - the use of scripture is the final authority for some; an appeal to tradition to another. I understand that logic and reason is critical in a discussion, but declaring logical fallacies can be used to deflect - muddy the waters - lol, as well as attempting to get the conversation back on track

Did I say that 'every thread is a formal debate? I didn't. The term logical fallacy is NOT used just in a formal debate. It is used in general conversation, even conversation on CB.

Your statement, 'one person's logical fallacy is another person's authority', is a straw man fallacy. As I explained in the OP, a logical fallacy is faulty reasoning.

To say that 'declaring logical fallacies can be used to deflect - muddy the waters - lol, as well as attempting to get the conversation back on track'. That's another straw man. My declaring logical fallacies is for no other reason than to show faulty logic that prevents logical discussion.

I support the authority of Scripture but that does not include support for the illogic of logical fallacies.

Oz

 

[aspen]

You must know you have illustrated my point.....

 

[OzSpen]

You must know you have illustrated my point.....

What point? That logical fallacies are only used in debate???

 

[pom2014]

Thread death occurred due to argumentum abusi fallacia.

Time 09:52AM

 

[Born_Again]

Thread death occurred due to argumentum abusi fallacia.

Time 09:52AM

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[StanJ]

Well Oz, your OP has been fully realized by aspen's comments. How apropos.

 

[StanJ]

Thread death occurred due to argumentum abusi fallacia.

Time 09:52AM

I thought this was funny as well pom, but read the following;

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Argumentum_abusi_fallacia