What type of logical fallacy is this?

[DavidJoseph]

Of course, if we defend Church teachings, then inevitably we’re going to run into folks who use logical fallacies of some kind. Suppose, for example, a friend of yours has been reading books by ex-Catholics (not theologians, mind you, but regular Joes) that tell all these horror stories about what Catholics supposedly believe (but are actually not what they really believe). And in addition to having to correct all these misconceptions, you eventually come to a point where you have to explain to your friend that these ex-Catholic authors are unreliable sources. Well, what if your friend says something like, “These guys are VERY reliable sources; I met them once during their book tour, and they’re of the highest integrity. They wouldn’t lie!” It would seem to me that this type of scenario involves a logical fallacy of some kind, but I can’t put my finger on which one. I want to say it’s an argument from authority; however, as I said earlier, these ex-Catholic authors are merely regular Joes, so at the same time I don’t really know how these folks could be considered “authorities.” Is there anyone here who’s good at recognizing logical fallacies? Thanks in advance.

 

[DavidFilmer]

It is a type of appeal to authroity - it is termed Argumentun ad Verecundiam - an appeal to an authority who is speaking outside his field of authority.

They preport to be an authority on Catholic doctrine (by espousing what Catholics “really” believe), yet they are not Catholic theologians. Their personal integruity is irrelevant - we may (in Christian charity) presume they are unaware that they are teaching error (due to their own ignorance). They are not “lying” (which presumes a deliberate distortion of what they believe to be true) - they are simply misinformed, and are spreading their sincere (but wrong) beliefs. And they have no credentials to establish the validity of thier beliefs.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’m just going to leave this here …

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

(I use this site frequently to determine what sort of fallacy a person is making, and to make sure that I do not also make logical fallacies when debating)

 

[sedonaman]

…“These guys are VERY reliable sources; I met them once during their book tour, and they’re of the highest integrity. They wouldn’t lie!” It would seem to me that this type of scenario involves a logical fallacy of some kind, but I can’t put my finger on which one. …

The person committing the logical fallacy is not appealing to authority so much as appealing to sincerety. A person might be the most sincere in the world, but sincerity doesn’t make him correct. We see this used all the time:
Candidate A: “My opponent’s idea won’t work because it has been tried many times, and it has never worked.”

News Interviewer: “Don’t you think he is sincere?”

 

[JohnAlexander]

The fallacy is called a false dichotomy, the assumption that there are only two possibilities.

The assumption is that the authors are either lying or telling the truth.

There are other options, the authors could just be mistaken. Another possibility is the authors might have experienced something or where taught something that is contrary to official Catholic teaching, i.e. criticizing the Church for holding beliefs that it doesn’t actually hold.

The mostly likely truth is that there is some of everything. Some problem initiates the break with the Catholic Church (this can be anything from a sin they don’t want to give up (homosexuality, birth control, women priests, etc.) to abuse by someone with Church authority)

Then add some bad theology either picked up from the general culture, bad catechists or just plain ignorance on the part of the author.

Then add some lies (stretching the truth) to make the point better.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m just going to leave this here …

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

(I use this site frequently to determine what sort of fallacy a person is making, and to make sure that I do not also make logical fallacies when debating)

Interesting site. I found a logical error, though, under their burden of proof fallacy:

“However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything…”

Is it 100% certain that we can never be certain of anything?

 

[EricFilmer]

Of course, if we defend Church teachings, then inevitably we’re going to run into folks who use logical fallacies of some kind. Suppose, for example, a friend of yours has been reading books by ex-Catholics (not theologians, mind you, but regular Joes) that tell all these horror stories about what Catholics supposedly believe (but are actually not what they really believe).

First let me point out that in these cases the authors of the books in question are resorting to the Straw Man fallacy, because they are criticizing beliefs that Catholicism does not actually teach. I know your question is not actually about the authors but rather those who cite them, but this still has a bearing on the topic at hand, as I will demonstrate in a moment.

And in addition to having to correct all these misconceptions, you eventually come to a point where you have to explain to your friend that these ex-Catholic authors are unreliable sources. Well, what if your friend says something like, “These guys are VERY reliable sources; I met them once during their book tour, and they’re of the highest integrity. They wouldn’t lie!” It would seem to me that this type of scenario involves a logical fallacy of some kind, but I can’t put my finger on which one. I want to say it’s an argument from authority; however, as I said earlier, these ex-Catholic authors are merely regular Joes, so at the same time I don’t really know how these folks could be considered “authorities.” Is there anyone here who’s good at recognizing logical fallacies? Thanks in advance.

I agree with you and my brother’s statement in Post #2 that this seems to be a type of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam.

Moreover, consider what I mentioned above about the authors of the books utilizing Straw Man fallacies. If someone defends these authors with statements such as, “These guys are of the highest integrity” then point out that the use of a Straw Man fallacy is a blatant example of intellectual dishonesty and therefore not the behavior of someone who truly is “of the highest integrity.”

 

[DavidFilmer]

It occured to me that this also has a smattering of Non Sequitur (the conclusion is not supported by the facts) - ie, these guys are morally upright, therefore their testimony is reliable.

Granted, they are less likely to intentionally lie, but they are not protected in any way from ignorance (or from spreading ignorance).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is a type of appeal to authroity - it is termed Argumentun ad Verecundiam - an appeal to an authority who is speaking outside his field of authority.

They preport to be an authority on Catholic doctrine (by espousing what Catholics “really” believe), yet they are not Catholic theologians. Their personal integruity is irrelevant - we may (in Christian charity) presume they are unaware that they are teaching error (due to their own ignorance). They are not “lying” (which presumes a deliberate distortion of what they believe to be true) - they are simply misinformed, and are spreading their sincere (but wrong) beliefs. And they have no credentials to establish the validity of thier beliefs.

By these criteria would we have condemned Jesus if we lived in his time .
OK he was a wonder worker as well…ahhhh, lets play the “he does it by demons” card.

So I am not sure how far we can go with this approach. Its a difficult question.

 

[DavidFilmer]

By these criteria would we have condemned Jesus if we lived in his time

Not necessarily.

Consider this example: Einstein was a patent clerk when he published his earliest five scientific papers, the last three of which were collectively the Special Theory of Relativity, and the second was a paper on the photoelectric effect, for which he won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 - he never won the Prize for his work on relativity.

Einstein basically invented quantum physics. Niels Bohr won the Nobel Physics Prize in 1922 (the year following Einstein’s award) for his work in the new field of quantum mechanics, which was inspired and based largely on Einstein’s work (and Bohr gave Einstein full credit for this - Bohr did not try to “steal” Einstein’s work).

Could we accuse Bohr of the logical fallacy of Argumentun ad Verecundiam, because he appealed to a lowly patent clerk to help substantiate his claims in quantum mechanics?

No, we could not, because there simply was no actual authority on quantum mechanics until Einstein arrived on the scene. The inventor of an idea enjoys special consideration in the logical idea of authority - he is actually the ultimate authority for this particular idea.

Jesus claimed to be God (“as Abraham was, I AM”). Jesus is surely not the first human to make this claim (Roman, Egyptian, etc rulers claimed to be “gods”), but only Jesus’ claim has withstood the test of time. No scientific test can validate Jesus’ claim, but it happens to be the only such claim whose following has grown steadily for 2000+ years.

I think we can logically accept Jesus as an authority of a person who claims to be divine, even though his earthly profession was lowly (for Jesus, it was as a carpenter).

FWIW, the noted physicist Leonard Susskind (who soundly defeated Stephen Hawking in the “Black Hole War”) began his earthly profession as a plumber.

 

[WesleyF]

“Many people are sincere, but at the same time they are sincerely wrong!” - Patrick Madrid

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not necessarily.

Consider this example: Einstein was a patent clerk when he published his earliest five scientific papers, the last three of which were collectively the Special Theory of Relativity, and the second was a paper on the photoelectric effect, for which he won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 - he never won the Prize for his work on relativity.

Einstein basically invented quantum physics. Niels Bohr won the Nobel Physics Prize in 1922 (the year following Einstein’s award) for his work in the new field of quantum mechanics, which was inspired and based largely on Einstein’s work (and Bohr gave Einstein full credit for this - Bohr did not try to “steal” Einstein’s work).

Could we accuse Bohr of the logical fallacy of Argumentun ad Verecundiam, because he appealed to a lowly patent clerk to help substantiate his claims in quantum mechanics?

No, we could not, because there simply was no actual authority on quantum mechanics until Einstein arrived on the scene. The inventor of an idea enjoys special consideration in the logical idea of authority - he is actually the ultimate authority for this particular idea.

Jesus claimed to be God (“as Abraham was, I AM”). Jesus is surely not the first human to make this claim (Roman, Egyptian, etc rulers claimed to be “gods”), but only Jesus’ claim has withstood the test of time. No scientific test can validate Jesus’ claim, but it happens to be the only such claim whose following has grown steadily for 2000+ years.

I think we can logically accept Jesus as an authority of a person who claims to be divine, even though his earthly profession was lowly (for Jesus, it was as a carpenter).

FWIW, the noted physicist Leonard Susskind (who soundly defeated Stephen Hawking in the “Black Hole War”) began his earthly profession as a plumber.

DF I think you may have missed my point.
I am not speaking of today, I am speaking from the point of view of a devout Jew living in Jesus’s time trying to understand this sincere Jesus who isn’t toeing traditional Jewish orthodoxy but is in some ways criticising it.

By your criteria above he should be ignored? But maybe I have missed something.