Most commonly used fallacies in argumentation

[Eucharisted]

**Ad Hominem **

1. J.P. Holding claims that the ancient Israelites were a group oriented people.
2. Holding quotes scholars to establish his point.
3. I say, “Holding wouldn’t know, he used to be a librarian at a prison.”
   Therefore, Holding’s claim is false.

**Ambiguity **

Peter said he saw a housefly.
Therefore, Peter thinks houses can fly.

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam

Albert Einstein stated that, “God does not play dice.”
Therefore, random probability (luck) is in contradiction to God’s sovereign plan.

Begging the Question

1. The Gospels contain several prophecies of the Fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple.
2. Any supposed prophecy of an event that actually occurred was probably written in hindsight.
3. The Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem (including the Temple) in 70 A.D. (i.e. Mat 23:37, 38; Mark 13:1-3).
   Therefore, the Gospels were probably written after 70 A.D.

Cause and Effect Fallacy

1. One of the Protestant movement’s most important doctrines is Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone).
2. The Protestant denominations have since fragmented.
   Therefore, Sola Scriptura causes denominational splitting.

Disjunctive Syllogism

1. Either God is sovereign or man has free will.
2. God is sovereign.
   Therefore, free will doesn’t exist.

**Equivocation **

1. Isaiah 44:6 says, “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God [elohym] besides Me.”
2. Psalm 82 implies there are many gods [elohym]. (Ye are gods…)
   Therefore, Isaiah and Psalms contradict one another.

**False Dilemma **

Either you accept Naturalism, or you are superstitious.

**Guilt By Association **

“I can’t believe you are a Christian! Hitler was a Christian!”

Genetic Fallacy

Most Christians are believers because their parents were.

**Hasty Generalization **

Some of the Christians I met are hypocritical.
Therefore, all Christians are hypocrites.

An atheist I met made some very irrational arguments.
Therefore, most atheists are irrational.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

There is no evidence that God exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.

There is no evidence that God does not exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Loaded Question

“Why is George W. Bush so blood thirsty?”

“Is oil worth the thousands of Iraqi lives we might kill?”

“Have you stopped beating your wife, lately?”

Appeal to Novelty

Recently the Crumpaq company came out with the Dimensia 7000 series computers. A spokesman said, “The design architecture in the 7000 series is much newer than in the 5000 series.” He continued, “This makes the 7000 far superior.”

Poisoning the Well

Don’t listen to him. He’s an idiot.

You can make your case, but obviously any so-called historian who thinks the Gospels are true is deluded.

 

[Eucharisted]

Bandwagon Fallacy

The majority of people in the world is opposed to the war in Iraq

Therefore, the war in Iraq is unjust.

“News 8, where more Michiganders get their news than from any other station.”

Most scientists believe evolution is true.

**Quoting Out of Context **

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)–in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. Colossians 2:20-23.

**Red Herring **

Patroitica: We must support the war in Iraq, because we have to finish what we started.

Economica: I would support the President with the War in Iraq, but I don’t like his policy on the economy.

Slippery Slope

If we allow creationism to be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution, then next thing you know, they will teach a flat earth and a solid sky as an alternative to modern cosmology.

If they restrict pornography today, tomorrow they will take away all of your freedom of speech.

**Special Pleading **

A case of special pleading is a person’s holding others to a different standard to himself (or someone who represents his case), without justification for the different standard. A Christ-myth skeptic asks a Christian to prove that Christ was real. When the Christian asks the myther to prove his version of Christ-myth is true, he refuses to. He must provide a reason why his belief is exempt from the same scrutiny the Christian’s belief gets. If he doesn’t give justification, or if the given reason is irrelevant, that is special pleading.

But of course, if a person who claims exemption from a standard does give a relevant reason for the exemption, it may be justified, depending on the strength of the reason.

Sweeping Generalization

1. Most men are “pigs.”
2. John is a man. [Though, John is a sensitive, incurably romantic.]
   Therefore, John is a “pig.”

Strawman

Calvinist: “. . . so God didn’t choose us based on anything we do. Predestination is based on God’s good pleasure.”
Arminian: “So, He chose us arbitrarily. Do we serve a whimsical God?”

Mom: The doctor says that these exercises will help you recover more quickly.
Son: Aw, Mom! Do I have to look like Arnold Schwarzsengger?

**Appeal to Tradition **

The tradition of the Catholic Church has been to baptize infants.
Therefore, infants should be baptized.

Weak Analogy

1. All dogs are mammals.
2. Toby is a mammal.
   Therefore, Toby is a dog.
3. All cats are animals.
4. J. P. Holding is an animal.
   Therefore, J. P. Holding is a cat.

The second argument might be thought of as an analogy of the first one. Hence, because the second conclusion is clearly wrong, it is reasonable to conclude the first argument is fallacious (even if all its statements are true).
This is why I have an example of each fallacy: You can compare the example to a similar argument that might come your way or that you recall. However, one has to be cautious, as similarities can be deceiving.

Counter-examples can rebut many arguments-by-weak-analogy, like the second argument above can be used to rebut the first argument above. Here’s an actual case from Tektonics. Frequently, to rebut Holding’s article The Impossible Faith, another religion is supposed to have been as unlikely to succeed as Christianity has, but did anyway. That would be devastasing to “The Impossible Faith” case, if the alternative is sufficiently analogous to Christianity and its history.

…But that has shown to be a big “if.” Take Mormonism, for example (see here). Upon comparison, we see some relevant disimilarities:
Factor #1: Christianity’s founder (Jesus) was subjected to great shame (the Cross). Joseph Smith also was, but to a lesser extent, in a society where honor and shame are not a critical issue.
Factor #2: Jesus had serious prejudices working against him. Joseph Smith may have had some prejudice against him, but by far not as bad as Jesus.
Factor #3: Physical Resurrection was offensive to Gentiles in 1st Century Rome. It was nearly accepted as fact in 19th Century America.
[To see the full list, click on the link above.]

In general, the weak analogy fallacy is when the case and its analogy have too many or large dissimilarities. There is no standard rule on how strong an analogy has to be to be useful, but weak analogies are usually recognizable.

Wishful Thinking

1. Inerrantists made a good explanation of the bat/bird issue.
2. However, it seems more likely to me that the Bible writers were scientifically ignorant and didn’t know bats weren’t birds.
   Therefore, the Bible errantly classifies bats as birds.

Source: tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html