Logical Fallacies - Part 1

Watch for these Logical Fallacies:

1. Ad hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.

2. Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.

3. Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon anappeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.

4. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

5. Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed

6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.

7. Circular Argument - see Begging the Question Division - assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.

8. Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.

9. False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.

(In our example of Biblical Inspiration, the answer is that the originals have the inspiration and the copies are virtually inspired. That is to say, the copies are inspired inasmuch as they correctly reproduce the original.)

10. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.

11. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.

12. Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.

13. Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand.

14. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.

15. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.

16. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property.

If you are discussing the topic of God with someone at least be sure that they and yourself are discussion properly.
Music Angels and Airwaves "Heaven"
Photos curtsey of www.google.com
Content Matt Slick www.carm.org

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Logical
• Fallacies
• Part
• Logic
• Law
• argumentation
• Straw
• man
• category
• special
• pleading
• red
• herring
• poisoning
• well
• non
• sequitur
• equivocati

[TheHonestTheist]

@TopRobbo1970 Wow and I thought believers were the deluded ones, yet here you are claiming that atheists never commit fallacies, which by the way you shouldn't call logical lol. Also check out the debate between WLC and Peter Atkins, you will see plenty of fallacies very clearer shown by WLC committed by the atheist Peter Atkins. It's extremely arrogant and ignorant to claim that only theists commit fallacies and it is extremely biased and blinkered for people to give you comment the thumbs up.

[mitchldowney]

I am basically agnostic/atheist but this video is succinctly put together and helpful. I'm growing fascinated with arguments and fallacies. Thanks for making it.

It's great to see sound reasoning being taught, regardless of which side of the arguments you take. I think it's a lost but sorely needed art for people to survive the 21st century. The global economy is sinking deeper and deeper into crisis. We need to use reason to dig ourselves out and fast...wait too long and we'll be using bombs.

[Cookiecutter87]

@wesselbindt Additionally, the discussion of starving children could be an appeal to pity, if it is mentioned in a judgemental context. For example " How can you believe in a God? There are children starving in the world and hence believing in God is mean". Even if something is mean, it could still be true. The point is not that everytime you mention starving children you are commiting a fallacy, it is that you are commiting a fallacy in certain cases.

[Cookiecutter87]

@wesselbindt I think some of the examples are unrealistic (in the sense that they are not often used), but I also think the point of this video is to give examples of logical fallacies. The examples are just that, examples

[z3r0Projects]

So where is the link to the debate that is shown here? I have seen hundreds , but never one like this...

[Cdant26]

GOD Bless!

[PrinceWalter]

The "if-then conditional" does not always appear in traditional "if-then" form, but in the case of Mat 19:17 the hypothesis has been specifically identified.

IF thou wilt enter into life (P), (THEN) keep the commandments (Q).

P -> Q

If the Apostle Paul is "contrary" in Rom 3:28 and Gal 3:11, then LOGICALLY CONCLUDE the truth of the Antecedent (P) without Affirming the Consequent (Q)...

Hello. I am looking for an atheist who uses logic in his videos and debates. DO YOU KNOW ANY?

[xAlex347x]

@Johannson6990 Look! Another falllacy.

[ghettofreeze]

@Moshikashitenai I share your frustration with such people, but why direct your anger randomly, and at people who are actually your allies? In fact, why be angry at all? Anger tends to cloud the mind and has no effect on your opponents except possibly to make them dismiss what you say.

By the way, you seem to have missed the fact that I didn't admit you were entirely right, only that you were technically right if an implausible condition existed. Just saying. Nothing personal.

[Moshikashitenai]

@ghettofreeze Well I get pissed! I try to explain things and the people to whom I'm explaining them choose to argue from their viewpoints / belief systems only and they say the same shit spouting the same fallacies that I just pointed out to them. God, do you know how frustrating that is? If there's one thing I hate above all else, it is having to repeat myself about something that should be obvious.