No True Scotsman
"You're not a true man. A true man does not pass up an opportunity like this."
"A true American would never not set off fireworks on the Fourth of July."
Hopefully the fallacy here seems apparent. The no true Scotsman fallacy often deals with claims that someone is not a "true" or "real" something unless he or she acts in accordance with some arbitrary preference or social custom; it is an easy and invalid way for someone to ignore examples of people who contradict their stereotypes or expectations. The name is derived from the scenario of someone who, upon hearing that someone born in Scotland puts sugar in his porridge, claims that "no true Scotsman" would ever do such a thing. Consider the examples above. If someone was born with a penis, he is a "true man" independent of whatever arbitrary cultural constructs or petty judgments he is held against. A true American is just someone either born in America or who received legitimate citizenship through some other avenue. The status as a "true American" has nothing to do with whether or not someone buys vehicles manufactured in America, votes for a particular candidate, has strong patriotic feelings or tendencies, views Americans as superior to foreigners, or has American flags around his or her house or neighborhood.
Circular Reasoning
"I know that the government is telling me the truth because the president said it is."
"You know why I believe the Bible is God's word? Because 2 Timothy 3:16 says so."
Circular reasoning occurs when somebody uses what would be the conclusion of a syllogism as a premise or cites something as being true because it is true. The law of identity is NOT circular reasoning, and neither is using logic to demonstrate the necessary reliability of logic. Logic is self-evident; that is, to deny or doubt its existence or veracity one must be in contradiction. But this is not the case with the reliability of the Bible or a government's leadership. No one is in contradiction if he or she entertains the possibility that these sources are not accurate. To verify them, one must search for additional evidence external to the source itself.
Anecdotal Fallacy
"There are just innate differences between men and women, and I have seen this in how the minds of my mom and dad worked differently."
"The way I know that Christianity is true is that I feel the Holy Spirit's presence when I pray to God or read the Bible."
Duh, the minds of a mother and father will probably work differently--they're different individuals! When pressed to defend beliefs about things like non-biological or non-anatomical differences between men and women, people will inevitably retreat behind some subjective experience or conditioned response that not everyone else shares. The anecdotal fallacy calls this out, as subjective experiences are often not a suitable basis for believing in conclusions about reality. As highlighted in the second example I provided, it is not uncommon for many people who believe in God (Christians and other theists) to cite examples of times they have felt God's presence or experienced some subjective conviction they believe originated from God. Sometimes this is even used to attempt to persuade people outside of a particular religion to adopt that theology. However, these feelings or experiences are nothing more than subjective anecdotes that hold no ultimate value in rational discourse (as a Christian, I am not denying that these experiences exist or are very impactful, just that they have any value for apologetics or as evidence for a belief about God or morality).
Fallacy Fallacy
"Your conclusion is false because the argument you used to reach it had so many fallacies."
If I were to tell someone that something is not true just because he or she could not defend the belief in question without committing a logical fallacy, I would have succumbed to the fallacy fallacy. Fallacious arguments alone do not necessarily mean that their conclusions themselves are false. A conclusion can still be true even if someone has argued for it by using every logical fallacy know to humanity, as the presence of those fallacies only means that the grounds used to justify the conclusion were unsound and illogical.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy
"I just know that outsider is responsible for all of the problems our town has been having. Ever since she came to us all sorts of terrible things have occurred."
Just because an event happens to coincide with the timing of another event does not mean that the latter was caused by the former. Come on, just because a tornado starts in Kansas after I sneezed does not mean that my sneeze actually generated the tornado or caused it in any way! And in the same way, just because a crime wave ended after a politician was elected does not mean that the politician's election and authority had anything to do with the diminishing of crime in the area.
No comments:
Post a Comment