![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) (→Fallacy fallacy) |
m |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{ | + | {{Main Page}} |
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader | {{FAIRAnalysisHeader | ||
|title=Logical fallacies | |title=Logical fallacies | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
}} | }} | ||
+ | {{Navbox:Fallacies}} | ||
==Ecological fallacy== | ==Ecological fallacy== | ||
Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
*'''See also:''' | *'''See also:''' | ||
** [[#Faulty_generalization | Faulty generalization]]. | ** [[#Faulty_generalization | Faulty generalization]]. | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
==Faulty generalization== | ==Faulty generalization== | ||
Line 202: | Line 193: | ||
<br>The nice things about Mormons are included so the reader won't reject the speaker for what he is: an anti-Mormon bigot. But, the positive is undercut and effectively 'unsaid' in most of the argument. The initial kindness is nothing but window dressing to one 'part' of the audience. | <br>The nice things about Mormons are included so the reader won't reject the speaker for what he is: an anti-Mormon bigot. But, the positive is undercut and effectively 'unsaid' in most of the argument. The initial kindness is nothing but window dressing to one 'part' of the audience. | ||
− | == | + | == Judgmental language == |
− | ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ | + | ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgmental_language Wikipedia entry]'' |
This fallacy seeks to influence the audience by using inflammatory or prejudicial language. | This fallacy seeks to influence the audience by using inflammatory or prejudicial language. |
Page 1 | A FAIR Analysis of:
Logical fallacies |
Page 3 |
This fallacy assumes that individuals can be accurately described by referring only to analyses of the group to which they belong. The inverse of this is faulty generalization.
This fallacy makes a false general conclusion based upon individual cases. It is the inverse of fallacies of distribution.
This fallacy draws a false conclusion about a group because the members of the group studied are not typical of the group as a whole.
Variation of this fallacy The 'spotlight fallacy' is one example of how such biased samples can be drawn. The things which tend to draw attention tend, by their nature, to be atypical.
(Also called fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
This error is made because one does not study enough of a group to understand its characteristics.
This fallacy makes a statement that is accurate, but has so many exceptions and caveats as to be meaningless or of little importance.
(or "fallacy of origins")
Wikipedia entry
This fallacy assumes that the origin of an idea is related to whether it is true or not.
(also called Association fallacy)
Wikipedia entry
This fallacy condemns an idea because of those who promote it.
This fallacy assumes that historical figures understood events and decisions in the same way (and with access to the same information) that the person analyzing the decision had. This fallacy often involves or is related to the error of presentism.
Relevance for apologetics?
This fallacy clings tenaciously to a belief despite the evidence. The belief may not be false, but one must admit that the present state of the evidence does not consist with the belief.
One can only point out that this is occurring (it is a common tactic with anti-Mormon authors who do not want their view of the Bible or religion contradicted). One can also challenged the premises which undergird the ideology.
One might, for instance, attempt to enhance the critic's understanding of:
It is claimed that 'ideology over reality' is the typical Mormon response to information which 'disproves' their belief. They may invoke cognitive dissonance theories to explain this. A response in this instance may require that the member:
This fallacy panders to the audience. It argues both sides of the question, and will therefore appear to support whichever opinion the listener has.
Variations of this fallacy Anti-Mormons commonly do not wish to appear intolerant or bigoted. Furthermore, they must contend with the fact that their audience may know many members of the Church, and so not be willing to apply hostile claims to their friends.
The critic will therefore argue that "most Mormons are honest, friendly, intelligent people." He will then say nothing further about this majority subset of the Church, but will focus on how ignorant, misguided, and hostile to the facts "some" members are. The critic usually slyly slants his report so that it effectively applies to most or all members, even though they have started out trying to appear generous. In this way, when called on the negative distortions, the critic can always plead, "But I'm not talking about all Mormons..." The so-called 'mainstream media' often adopts this tactic (either intentionally or because of manipulation by anti-Mormon critics) in an effort to appear 'balanced'.
Example: from David Hedley, “Leaving the fold," Calgary Herald (Sunday, 30 May 2004): B07.
Begins positive... | ...undercuts with negative |
|
|
|
So, the Saints may mean well or be honest—except when it comes to the thing that matters most: their faith. They’re intelligent and honest until confronted with ‘the truth about their faith,’ and then they either choose ignorance or dishonesty. So, these ‘virtues’ are there for window dressing, as it were, but when the chips are down, those virtues are nowhere in sight. |
|
However...
The reader is expected to connect the dots, and conclude these are not truly acts of love or sincerity, and so the leaders aren't really 'loving' at all. They are either cynical manipulators or dupes. |
The nice things about Mormons are included so the reader won't reject the speaker for what he is: an anti-Mormon bigot. But, the positive is undercut and effectively 'unsaid' in most of the argument. The initial kindness is nothing but window dressing to one 'part' of the audience.
This fallacy seeks to influence the audience by using inflammatory or prejudicial language.
(also called Ignoratio elenchi)
Wikipedia entry
This fallacy makes a logical argument, but the argument does not prove what the critic claims it does.
This fallacy derives from literary criticism, and asserts that the author's intent in writing a text is not the only, or even the most important, meaning of the text.
Need LDS example if possible
This fallacy makes a statement that one cannot agree or disagree with--this causes problems for logical reasoning, since one cannot confirm or deny the truthfulness of the meaningless statement.
Need a better LDS example if possible
A form of this argument may redefine a key term. "I'm not lost, I just don't know where I am." Being lost is not knowing where one is; the statement is therefore meaningless.
(also called argumentum ad temperantiam)
Wikipedia entry
The fallacy presumes that the logical place to find truth is between extreme points of view.
This fallacy describes an occurrence in vivid and often exaggerated detail, in an effort to convince the audience there is a problem where none is likely to exist.
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now