Post by Radrook Admin on Sept 9, 2019 15:21:30 GMT -5
Logical reasoning Vs. Fallacious Reasoning
Reasoning is the ability to provide reasons for thoughts and behaviors. This ability is common to God angels and mankind, but not animals. A dog cannot provide reasons for behavior. He might feel justified in keeping the neighborhood awake all night by barking-but he cannot articulate his motives neither to himself nor to others.
Now there are two types of reasoning Cogent and fallacious. The reasons provided by cogent reasoning are justifiable.
Example:
Dogs are mammals =major premise
Joe is dog = minor premise
Joe is a mammal = conclusion
Those provided by fallacious reasoning are not justifiable
Example:
Dogs are reptiles = false premise
Joe is a dog. = True minor premise
Joe is a reptile. = False conclusion though in harmony with the minor premise.
Dogs are mammals =major premise
Joe is dog = minor premise
Joe is a mammal = conclusion
Those provided by fallacious reasoning are not justifiable
Example:
Dogs are reptiles = false premise
Joe is a dog. = True minor premise
Joe is a reptile. = False conclusion though in harmony with the minor premise.
Ten examples of flawed reasoning:
1. Straw man: an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. The person creates an argument, claims that you proposed it, and then proceeds to attack it.
Example:
I am going to rent an apartment.
That apartment isn't for sale!
Example:
I am going to rent an apartment.
That apartment isn't for sale!
2. Ad Hominem: Attacking the person and not the argument: Or Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Example: Joe is white, so his testimony against the black person must be a lie.
Example: Joe is white, so his testimony against the black person must be a lie.
3. Argument from ignorance: (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
Example: No one has proven that aliens don't exist, so they must exist. No one has proven that fish don't turn into humans, so it must be true. No one has proven that Heaven exists. So it doesn't exist.
Example: No one has proven that aliens don't exist, so they must exist. No one has proven that fish don't turn into humans, so it must be true. No one has proven that Heaven exists. So it doesn't exist.
4. Appeal to Authority: If the president, king, emperor, judge, etc. says it, then it must be true!
Example: If the school principal says its OK to fight in the restrooms, then it must be OK. Or if an archeologist says that the Hittites never existed, then he must be right.
Example: If the school principal says its OK to fight in the restrooms, then it must be OK. Or if an archeologist says that the Hittites never existed, then he must be right.
5. Inconsistency of policy: Shifting policy whenever convenient. This one is used extensively by atheists scientists who shift from cogent resoning to fallacious in order to avoid conclusions that they find disagreeable because they indicate a creator or else might go against a pet theory such as evolution or abiogenesis.
Example: Molecular machines and the DNA code assembled themselves but other codes and other machines need a mind to code and to assemble them.
Example: Molecular machines and the DNA code assembled themselves but other codes and other machines need a mind to code and to assemble them.
6. Appeal to Popularity: The Everybody does it, so it's OK to do it too, argument.
Examples:
Everybody is cheating on tests, so I can cheat as well.
Everybody or most people steal, so it's OK for me to steal.
Most scientists are atheists, so they must be right in their conclusions
Examples:
Everybody is cheating on tests, so I can cheat as well.
Everybody or most people steal, so it's OK for me to steal.
Most scientists are atheists, so they must be right in their conclusions
8. Two Wrongs make right:
Example:
He killed my dog, so I will kill his, type argument.
They bombed civilians so we will too.
They used torture so we will too.
They used to physically attack slaves so now we will do it too!
Example:
He killed my dog, so I will kill his, type argument.
They bombed civilians so we will too.
They used torture so we will too.
They used to physically attack slaves so now we will do it too!
9. Before this this therefore the cause of this- Assuming causality due to temporal priority:
Or: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this"; temporal sequence implies causation) – X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y.
Examples:
The window slammed shut and there was lightning. The window-shutting caused the lightning.
Or,
The Babylonian Myths were recorded in writing before the Genesis account was, therefore the Genesis account was derived from Babylonian myths
10. Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
Example:
Atheist ignore all the evidence that supports the Noachian Flood as well as all the evidence that indicates a creative mind in nature and focus on what they consider to be chaos in nature instead.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Example:
Atheist ignore all the evidence that supports the Noachian Flood as well as all the evidence that indicates a creative mind in nature and focus on what they consider to be chaos in nature instead.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Logical or Cogent Reasoning
Deductive reasoning determines whether the truth of a conclusion can be determined for that rule, based solely on the truth of the premises. Example: "When it rains, things outside get wet. The grass is outside, therefore: when it rains, the grass gets wet." Mathematical logic and philosophical logic are commonly associated with this type of reasoning.
Inductive reasoning attempts to support a determination of the rule. It hypothesizes a rule after numerous examples are taken to be a conclusion that follows from a precondition in terms of such a rule. Example: "The grass got wet numerous times when it rained, therefore: the grass always gets wet when it rains."
While they may be persuasive, these arguments are not deductively valid, see the problem of induction. Science is associated with this type of reasoning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning
Fallacious Reasoning?
fallacious (fəˈleɪʃəs)
adj
1. (Logic) containing or involving a fallacy; illogical; erroneous
2. tending to mislead
3. delusive or disappointing: a fallacious hope.
falˈlaciously adv
falˈlaciousness n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
fal•la•cious (fəˈleɪ ʃəs)
adj.
1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments.
2. deceptive; misleading.
[1500–10; < Latin fallāx deceitful]
fal•la′cious•ly, adv.
fal•la′cious•ness, n.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.