Difference between revisions of "Logical fallacies/Page 2"

Revision as of 18:24, 15 June 2009 (view source) GregSmith (talk | contribs) m (Created page with '* Go to '''PAGE ONE''' (A to G) == Historian's fallacy == ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy Wikipedia entry]'' This fallacy assumes t…')		Revision as of 18:30, 15 June 2009 (view source) GregSmith (talk | contribs) m Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	* [[Logical fallacies|Go to '''PAGE ONE''' (A to G)]]	+	{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
		+	|title=Logical fallacies
		+	|author=
		+	|noauthor=
		+	|section=Page 2 (Ecological fallacy to Misleading vividness)
		+	|previous=[[Logical fallacies/Page 1|Page 1]]
		+	|next=[[Logical fallacies/Page 3|Page 3]]
		+	|notes=
		+	}}
		+	===Ecological fallacy===
		+
		+	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
		+
		+	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 | faulty generalization]].
		+
		+	*'''Argument''': "All the Mormons I've met have never had a good response to the polygamy issue.  Therefore, my apologist friend doesn't have a good answer to the polygamy issue."
		+	*'''Rebuttal''': Averages or stereotypes may reveal something true of some members of a group, but they say very little about a specific individual.  If the average IQ is 100 in the United States, does that mean that ''everyone'' in the US has an IQ of 100?
		+	*'''See also:'''
		+	** [[#Faulty_generalization | Faulty generalization]].
		+
		+	==Faulty generalization==
		+
		+	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization Wikipedia entry]''
		+
		+	This fallacy makes a false general conclusion based upon individual cases.  It is the inverse of [[#Fallacies_of_distribution | fallacies of distribution]].
		+
		+	===Biased sample===
		+
		+	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biased_sample Wikipedia entry]''
		+
		+	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.
		+
		+	*'''Argument''': Mormons all feel oppressed in their religion but don't dare say anything--it's what all my friends on the ex-mormon recovery bulletin board experienced.
		+	*'''Rebuttal''': The experiences and perspectives of those writing about their 'ex-Mormon experiences' in public are not likely to be representative of the majority of Mormons.  This is not to say that their perspectives are of no worth, but they have little utility in explaining how 'most' Mormons look at things, since they have chosen to leave while most Mormons have chosen to stay.
		+
		+	''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.
		+
		+	*'''Argument''': "Mormon bishops can't be trusted; I've seen bishops in the paper charged with sexual abuse."
		+	*'''Rebuttal''': The bishops who appear in the newspaper are not likely to be representative of Mormon bishops generally; the vast majority will go quietly about their work without being noticed or cited for committing crimes.  Newspapers never print a headline reading "sun came up this morning in the east"; were the sun to rise in the west, that would be news.  But, we would not then be justified in concluding that the sun tends to rise in the west.
		+	*'''See also:'''
		+	** [[#Statistical_and_mathematical_fallacies | Statistical and mathematical fallacies]]
		+
		+	===Hasty generalization===
		+	(Also called ''fallacy of insufficient statistics'', ''fallacy of insufficient sample'', ''fallacy of the lonely fact'', ''leaping to a conclusion'', ''hasty induction'', ''secundum quid'') <br>
		+
		+	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization Wikipedia entry]''
		+
		+	This error is made because one does not study enough of a group to understand its characteristics.
		+	*'''Argument''': My Mormon friend cursed, drank, and shoplifted.  Mormons sure don't live very upright lives."
		+	*'''Rebuttal''': The friend may not have been representative of Mormons generally.  It is unfair to judge all Mormons based upon the actions of a few or one.
		+	*'''See also:'''
		+	** [[#Misleading_vividness | Misleading vividness]]
		+	** [[#Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy | Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]
		+	** [[#Perfect_solution_fallacy | Perfect solution fallacy]]
		+	** [[#Statistical_and_mathematical_fallacies | Statistical and mathematical fallacies]]
		+
		+	===Overwhelming exception===
		+
		+	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelming_exception Wikipedia entry]''
		+
		+	This fallacy makes a statement that is accurate, but has so many exceptions and caveats as to be meaningless or of little importance.
		+
		+	*'''Argument''': "Mormons may have a Church named after Jesus, end every prayer in His name, believe He is the Son of God, have multiple books of scripture dedicated to teaching about Him, teach their members to emulate his life, believe that He is the only route to salvation, and do extensive acts of charity to non-believers, but aside from that they aren't [[#Latter-day_Saints_aren%27t_Christians | Christian]] in any meaningful sense."
		+	*'''Rebuttal''': If none of that counts as "Christian in a meaningful sense," then of what real value does being or not being Christian have?
		+	*'''See also:'''
		+	** [[#Suppressed_correlative| Suppressed correlative]]
		+
		+	== Genetic fallacy ==
		+	(or "fallacy of origins")<br>
		+	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
		+
		+	This fallacy assumes that the ''origin'' of an idea is related to whether it is true or not.
		+
		+	*'''Argument''': "The first mention in the Bible of becoming like God comes from Satan in the Garden of Eden.  Therefore, anyone who mentions becoming like God is Satanic."
		+	*'''Rebuttal''': The truth or falsehood of an idea does not depend on who advocates or opposes it.  Jesus also mentioned becoming [[Deification_of_man|like God]] (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/5/48#48 Matthew 5:48]).
		+	*'''See also:'''
		+	** [[#Ad_hominem | Ad hominem]]
		+	** [[#Bandwagon_fallacy | Bandwagon fallcy]]
		+	** [[#Appeal_to_authority | Appeal to authority]]
		+
		+	== Guilt by association ==
		+	(also called ''Association fallacy'')<br>
		+	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association Wikipedia entry]''
		+
		+	This fallacy condemns an idea because of those who promote it.
		+
		+	*'''Argument''': "Mormons were involved in the [[Mountain_Meadows_Massacre | Mountain Meadows Massacre]].  Therefore, Mormonism is a false religion that promotes violence and murder."
		+	*'''Rebuttal''': Virutally any idea can have some believer or advocate who is distasteful.  This says nothing about whether the idea is true or not.  (e.g. Hitler believed the sun rose in the east; this is true, despite Hitler's odious nature.)
		+	*'''See also:'''
		+	** [[#Ad_hominem| Ad hominem]]
		+	** [[#Genetic_fallacy | Genetic fallacy]]
	== Historian's fallacy ==		== Historian's fallacy ==
Line 186:		Line 277:
	** [[#Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy | Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]		** [[#Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy | Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]
	** [[#Perfect_solution_fallacy | Perfect solution fallacy]]		** [[#Perfect_solution_fallacy | Perfect solution fallacy]]
−
−	== Naturalistic fallacy ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy refers to arguments in ethics whereby something is declared 'good' in an ethical sense because of 'natural' properties ("pleasant," "feels good," "occurs in nature").
−	*'''Argument''': "Mormons are wrong to oppose homosexual behavior, because such behavior occurs in nature among other animal species, proving that it is not a 'perversion' or 'aberration' for humans.
−	*'''Rebuttal''': There are many natural occurances which are not morally acceptable.  Some beetles ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedbugs Xylocaris maculipennis]) seal the female's reproductive tract with a plug to prevent other males from successfully mating with them.  Subsequent beetle suitors then stab through the female abdomen to bypass this obstruction.  Such behavior may be ''natural'' but it is surely not ''moral'' if applied to human behavior.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	== Negative proof ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy argues that because there is no proof of the negative, the claimed statement is true.  Thus, because there is no evidence that something is ''not'' a certain way, this is taken as evidence that it ''is'' a certain way.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "There's no proof that Joseph didn't plan to defraud people, so he defrauded people."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': The burden of proof is always on the claimant--if someone claims that Joseph planned to defraud people, ''they'' must prove that he did so.  They may not claim that others must provide proof that he did not seek to defraud people.  Proving a negative is notoriously difficult and often impossible.  A legal analogy to this principle is that a person is "innocent until proven guilty," not guilty unless he can prove his innocence.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Argument_from_ignorance | Argument from ignorance]]
−	** [[#Argument_from_silence| Argument from silence]]
−	** [[#Shifting_the_burden_of_proof | Shifting the burden of proof]]
−
−	== Non sequitur ==
−	(or, ''it does not follow'')<br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy occurs when a conclusion does not follow from the premises.  There are two variations, discussed below:
−
−	=== Affirming the consequent ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy takes the following form:
−
−	:Premise 1:If A, then B.
−	:Premise 2:B.
−	:Conclusion:Therefore, A.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "Those who practiced authorized plural marriage had multiple sexual partners.  John C. Bennett had multiple sexual partners.  Therefore, Bennett practiced authorized plural marriage."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': A implies B, but B does not imply A--i.e., authorized plural marriages had multiple partners, but all those with multiple partners were not practicing authorized plural marriage.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	=== Denying the antecedent ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent Wikipedia entry]''
−	This fallacy takes the following form:
−
−	:Premise 1:If A, then B.
−	:Premise 2:Not A.
−	:Conclusion:Therefore, not B.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "Those who practiced authorized plural marriage had multiple sexual partners.  John C. Bennett did not practice authorized plural marriage.  Therefore, Bennett did not have multiple sexual partners."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': A implies B, but not meeting the A does not mean that B did not occur--i.e. many of those who did not practice plural marriage did not have multiple sexual partners, but some did.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	==No true Scotsman==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	The fallacy defines a key term in such a way as to favour the speaker and disfavour his/her opponent.  It is a form of [[#Begging_the_question | begging the question,]] since one shapes a definition used in the argument to support the conclusion one wishes to reach.
−
−	*'''Argument''': Latter-day Saints are not Christian because they do not believe in the Trinity.
−	*'''Rebuttal''': "Christians" are not defined as those who accept the Trinity, but rather as those who accept Jesus as Son of God and Savior.  Since LDS do accept this, they are "Christians," just not "Trinitarian Christians."  In other words, "Trinitarian" does not equal "Christian."
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Ad_hominem| Ad hominem]]
−	** [[#Begging_the_question | Begging the question.]]
−	** [[#Package_deal_fallacy | Package deal fallacy]]
−
−	== Package deal fallacy ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_deal_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy assumes that traits or things which are often grouped together ''must'' go together.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "Mormons do not believe in [[Creatio_ex_nihilo | creatio ex nihilo]] therefore they aren't Christians."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': While many or most Christians may believe in ''creatio ex nihilo'', this is not necessarily what makes one a Christian.  A Christian is one who worships Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#No_true_Scotsman | No true Scotsman]]
−
−	== Pathetic fallacy ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy treats inanimate objects or entities as if they had feelings or mental processes.
−
−	''Need LDS example if possible''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Reification | Reification]]
−
−	== Perfect solution fallacy ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy assumes that a perfect solution exists (or should exist) to a problem or issue.  The speaker therefore refuses to consider any solution that does not resolve all issues.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "Unless you can provide an answer to all anti-Mormon criticisms, the Church must be false."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': In any non-trivial field, some problems remain insoluble or only partially solved.
−
−	This fallacy has special relevance in religion.  The LDS do not depend upon logical syllogisms for their beliefs; rather, they are the product of divine revelation to each individual.  Asking God does not require that all our issues be 'solved,' but only that we entertain the possibility that the Church may be true, and that God will answer the sincere seeker.
−
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#False dilemma | False dilemma]]
−	** [[#Hasty_generalization | Hasty generalization]]
−	** [[#Misleading_vividness | Misleading vividness]]
−	** [[#Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy | Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]
−
−	== Poisoning the well ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy attempts to discredit a person before their arguments are even heard.
−	*'''Argument''': "Nothing that anyone who publishes with FAIR or FARMS can be believed, because they are "apologists," and so inherently untrustworthy."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': An "apologist" may have a very good argument or a very bad one.  One is only intellectually honest if he/she is willing to consider the argument ''on its own merits'' regardless of who raised it.  This tactic is used to avoid confronting arguments with which the critic does not wish to deal.  All authors have biases; "apologists" are at least up front about theirs, while critics try to play the role of disinterested 'seekers of truth,' they are as much "apologists" for their own position as a religious apologist.  Trying to hide behind the claim that one is 'merely being objective' is misleading.
−
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Ad_hominem| Ad hominem]]
−
−	== Proof by verbosity ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy provides the illusion of proof by the sheer mass of material flung at the problem.
−
−	This is a favorite anti-Mormon tactic, in which a "shotgun" approach is used, whereby the critic throws up a barage of criticism, and persists with a given issue only until it is clear that the target has an answer or is untroubled by it.  The intent is not for understanding, but to wear down through the sheer volume and duration of the attack.  Practitioners of this approach rely on the fact that answering an attack is always more time intensive than launching one.
−
−	This fallacy is especially notable in some ostensibly 'scholarly' approaches to Mormonism, in which the volume and number of footnotes provides the illusion of depth and rigor.  Such "scholarly overkill"[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=280 *] can be used to mask the fact that the sources do not say what the footnotes claim, or that important alternative evidence or explanations have been ignored.  The intent is to overawe or intimidate the reader into acceptance or at least acquiesence, since checking voluminous sources may take a prohibitive amount of time.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "Look at everything that's 'wrong' with Mormonism!  Even if only 10% of my claims have merit, your faith has serious problems!"
−	*'''Rebuttal''': A thousand poor attacks are as worthless as a single poor one.  Just because there is the critics' smoke of charges and claims does not mean there is a true fire of a crisis of faith.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Appeal_to_the_majority | Appeal to the majority]] / ''Argumentum ad populum''
−	** [[#Argument_from_repetition | Argument from repetition]]
−	** [[#Non_sequitor | Non sequitor]]
−	** [[#Red_herring | Red herring]]
−
−	== Questionable cause  ==
−	(also called ''non causa pro causa'') <br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questionable_cause Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	These fallacies mistakenly claim a 'cause' for an event where not warranted.
−
−	===Circular cause and consequence===
−	(also called ''chicken and egg'' fallacy, or ''Catch 22'')<br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_cause_and_consequence Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy argues that a consequence is the cause of an event or thing.
−
−	''Need LDS example if possible''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#No_true_Scotsman | No true Scotsman]]
−
−	=== Correlation implies causation  ===
−	(Also called ''cum hoc ergo prompter hoc''--"with this, therefore because of this")<br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation_%28logical_fallacy%29 Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy presumes that because two events occur together, one is the cause of the other.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "A polygamous wife felt depressed and undervalued.  Therefore, polygamy caused women to be depressed and undervalued."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': Some women who drink water also feel depressed and undervalued.  It does not follow that water is the cause.  Many people feel depressed and undervalued, regardless of their marital circumstances.  It is possible that these feelings may be present in any marital situation, and not be caused by marriage status.  One could just as easily argue that women who feel depressed and undervalued choose plural marriage.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Post_hoc | Post hoc ergo prompter hoc]](also called ''cum hoc ergo propter hoc'')
−
−	=== Fallacy of the single cause ===
−	(or ''oversimplification'' of the cause)<br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy oversimplifies a situation, and presumes that there is a single cause of a more complex phenomenon.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "Polygamy was introduced to satisfy sexual desire.  You can't expect me to believe the men involved had no sexual feelings whatever?"
−	*'''Rebuttal''': Plural marriage was a complex institution, which had personal, social, and religious underpinnings.  Focusing on a single cause is sure to lead to misunderstanding and caricature.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#False_dilemma | False dilemma]]
−	** [[#Joint_effect | Joint effect]]
−
−	=== Joint effect ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_effect Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy assumes that two phenomenon are related as cause and effect, when in fact both are caused by a third event.
−
−	''Need LDS example if possible''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	=== Post hoc  ===
−	(also called ''post hoc ergo propter hoc''-- "after it, therefore because of it")<br>
−	(or, ''coincidental correlation,'' ''false cause'') <br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy argues that because phenomenon B comes after phenomenon A, A caused B.
−
−	*'''Argument''': Joseph Smith used to dig for treasure before claiming to be a prophet.  Therefore, his money-digging activities created his belief in divine messengers.
−	*'''Rebuttal''': An alarm clock goes off while it is still dark outside, but the ringing of the clock does not cause the sun to rise.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Historian.27s_fallacy | Historian's fallacy]]
−	** [[#Non_sequitor | Non sequitor]]
−	** [[#Regression_fallacy | Regression fallacy]]
−
−	=== Texas sharpshooter fallacy ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy takes data from its context, and thereby tries to make it appear more 'impressive' than it truly is.  The name comes from an example of a Texas gunslinger who shoots randomly at a barndoor, and then ''afterward'' paints a target around each bullet hole.  The holes are random, but appear to prove that the gunslinger is a 'great shot.'
−
−	*'''Argument''': "Ethan Smith's ''View of the Hebrews'' is clearly the material Joseph Smith used to create the Book of Mormon&mdash;look at the things the books have in common!"
−	*'''Rebuttal''': The supposed 'parallels' between [[Book_of_Mormon_and_View_of_the_Hebrews | Ethan Smith's book]] and the Book of Mormon are general and rather trivial.  This claim usually ignores the many "unparallels" which exist, and ignores the vast amount of material that has no analogue at all between the volumes.  Claims about ''View of the Hebrews'' are only successful for those who have not read both volumes in their entirety, since the data is taken from its literary context.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Gambler.27s_fallacy | Gambler's fallacy]]
−	** [[#Hasty_generalization | Hasty generalization]]
−	** [[#Misleading_vividness | Misleading vividness]]
−	** [[#Perfect_solution_fallacy | Perfect solution fallacy]]
−
−	=== Wrong direction ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong_direction Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	In this fallacy, cause and effect are reversed.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "Apologists only find evidence for the Book of Mormon because they believe it."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': Apologists find the evidence&mdash;both intellectual and spiritual&mdash;for the Book of Mormon to be convincing, and so they believe it.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Joint_effect | Joint effect]]
−
−	== Red herring  ==
−	(also called ''irrelevant conclusion'', ''ignoratio elenchi'' - "ignorance of the issue") <br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28fallacy%29 Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy uses an unrelated issue to distract the audience's attention.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "We could investigate the claims of the Book of Mormon, but becoming a Mormon involves assuming a lot of onerous duties."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': Whether being a Mormon is difficult is irrelevent and a distraction--the key point is whether the Book of Mormon is true.  If so, then one ought to be a member of the Church regardless of how hard it is.  If not, one ought not, even if the route is easy.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Ad_hominem | Ad hominem]]
−	** [[#Appeal_to_emotion | Appeal to emotion]]
−	** [[#Appeal_to_motive | Appeal to motive]]
−	** [[#Irrelevant_conclusion | Irrelevant conclusion]]
−
−	== Reification  ==
−	(also called ''hypostatization'') <br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy treats an abstract idea as if it were real.
−
−	''Need LDS example if possible''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Pathetic_fallacy | Pathetic fallacy]]
−
−	== Relativist fallacy  ==
−	(also called ''subjectivist fallacy'') <br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	''Relevance for apologetics?''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	== Retrospective determinism  ==
−	(i.e. it happened so it was bound to) <br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_determinism Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy assumes that something which happened was inevitable.  It is a claim made with the benefit of hindsight, but provides no rational reason for believing that what ''did'' happen was what would ''inevitably'' happen.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "Once he decided to run for President of the United States, Joseph Smith's assassination was assured."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': The argument presumes that running for President was the sole cause for Joseph's murder, and an inevitable one.  Historical events are more complicated than this; there is a complex web of cause, effect, and contingency at work.  Joseph could have made many decisions which resulted in him going free (e.g. abandoning his prophetic claims, going west over the Mississippi to escape the mob, etc.), and those involved in his prosecution and murder could likewise have made choices which resulted in different outcomes.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Hasty_generalization | Hasty generalization]]
−	** [[#Historian.27s_fallacy | Historian's fallacy]]
−	**[[Predestination]]
−
−	== Shifting the burden of proof ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	The burden of proof properly rests on the claimant--the person who makes a claim must back it up.  It is not the responsibility of others to prove that a claim is "not true."
−
−	*'''Argument''': "The Book of Mormon is a forgery, unless you can prove it isn't."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': The person who claims the Book of Mormon is a forgery must prove it.  This is a variation of the legal principle that one is "innocent until proven guilty."
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Argument_from_fallacy | Argument from fallacy]]
−	** [[#Negative_proof | Negative proof]]
−
−	== Slippery slope ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy asserts that if the argument is granted, a consequence will inevitably happen.  This consequence is painted as inexorable and negative; thus, the audience is encouraged to reject the argument.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "If you accept the doctrine of personal revelation, then people will get revelations to do whatever they want.  Soon people will be murdering like crazy because 'God told them to'.  Clearly, personal revelation is a dangerous idea, and so should be rejected."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': The argument can be attacked on two grounds:
−	** in the first place, the inevitable link between the argument (personal revelation) and the consequence (murder) is not at all clear, and has not been demonstrated.
−	** in the second place, negative consequences should not deter us from accepting that which is true.  If personal revelation is a reality, then we must accept it even if there are some "negative" consequences to it.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Appeal_to_consequences | Appeal to consequences]]
−	** [[#Appeal_to_emotion | Appeal to emotion]]
−	** [[#Misleading_vividness | Misleading vividness]]
−	** [[#Straw_man | Straw man]]
−
−	== Special pleading ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy creates a one-sided argument by including favorable data and excluding unfavorable data through improper means.  Tactics include:
−	* claiming the right to dictate the meaning of key terms, without proper justificaton (e.g. see [[Latter-day_Saints_aren%27t_Christians | Latter-day Saint's aren't Christians]]).
−	* claiming access to 'secret' or otherwise inaccessible data which cannot be verified (e.g. see [[#Argument_from_authority | argument from authority]]).
−	* claiming that the normal rules of evidence or discourse do not apply to the situation because of special circumstances, without proper justification
−	* claiming the subject is too technical to explain to one's opponent
−
−	'''Important note''': critics might well point out that appeals to spiritual witnesses and "testimony" are special pleading, because they make reference to events .  This is true to the extent that an LDS person expects the critic to take his word for the spiritual witness.  However, LDS doctrine teaches that spiritual witnesses are available to all seekers; the witness given the LDS is ultimately to persuade him or her, and no one else.  Thus, testimony may explain why an LDS remains convinced, despite a personal inability to articulate a rational basis for faith on a particular point.  To use it to end a discussion and convince another, however, ''is'' special pleading.  To simply offer it as an explanation for why one continues to believe is not.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "Latter-day Saints aren't Christians because they don't accept the creeds."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': One must first demonstrate that "believer in the creeds" is a necessary component for being called "Christians."  One must also explain whether such defintions may properly exclude the apostles and first century Christians from the family of "Christians," even though they had no creeds.  Refusing to do this legwork is special pleading.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Argument_from_authority | argument from authority]]
−	** [[#Statistical_special_pleading | Statistical special pleading]]
−
−	== Statistical and mathematic fallacies==
−
−	''These fallacies are less commonly seen in anti-Mormon writing, since mathematics and statistics generally play little role in such discussion.  There are included her for completeness, and additions will be made if examples are encountered.''
−
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Faulty_generalization | Faulty generalization]]
−	** [[#Misleading_vividness | Misleading vividness]]
−
−	=== Base rate fallacy ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	=== Conjunction fallacy ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	=== Dicto simpliciter ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicto_simpliciter Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	==== Accident  ====
−	(also called ''a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid'') <br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28fallacy%29 Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	==== Converse accident  ====
−	(also called ''a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter'') <br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	=== Gambler's fallacy===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy Wikipedia entry]'' see also ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_gambler%27s_fallacy Wikipedia entry for Inverse gambler's fallacy]''
−
−	This fallacy involves a misunderstanding of probability.
−
−	*'''Argument''': A fair coin is tossed ten times, giving ten results of 'heads.'  We are therefore 'due' for it to come up tails, so that is more likely.
−	*'''Rebuttal''': The chance of the coin coming up heads is 50%.  The coin has no memory of past events; heads and tails are equally likely on the eleventh throw.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	=== Invalid proof ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invalid_proof Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy is restricted to the field of mathematics, in which a mathematical principle is used improperly, producing a self-contradictory result.
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	=== Lump of labour fallacy  ===
−	(also called ''the fallacy of labour scarcity'' or ''zero sum fallacy'') <br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy assumes that a variable is independent of the situation under consideration, while in fact it is interrelated to other variables.  For example, one might assume that in an economy the amount of money someone earns must result in someone else losing the same amount of money.  However, this is false, since economic systems may create weath or value, meaning that one person's gain need not be someone else's 'loss'.
−
−	''Need LDS example if possible''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−	=== Prosecutor's fallacy ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	=== Regression fallacy ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy mistakes "regression to the mean" as a significant signal, rather than a normal statistical artifact.
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	=== Screening test fallacy ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screening_test_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	=== Statistical special pleading ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_special_pleading Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	In this fallacy, statistics are 'massaged' or expressed in such a way as to mislead.
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Special_pleading | Special pleading]]
−
−	== Straw man ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument.  The speaker then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.
−
−	This is one of the most common anti-Mormon approaches.  Rarely do anti-Mormon authors fairly convey LDS opinion and thought on a target, and even more rarely do such authors engage LDS scholarship.  Most anti-Mormon arguments are decades old, and have been "asked and answered" many times.  Thanks to the straw man tactic, anti-Mormons can continue to recycle attacks.
−
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Appeal_to_ridicule | Appeal to ridicule]]
−	** [[#Slippery_slope | Slippery slope]]
−	** {{JBMS|author=William J. Hamblin|article=The Latest Strawman|vol=4|num=2|date=1995|start=82|end=92}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=103 *]
−
−	== Style over substance fallacy ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_over_substance_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	This fallacy refuses to engage counterarguments, and simply focuses on the way in which the counterargument has been presented.
−
−	A common anti-Mormon tactic is to respond to a rebuttal by complaining that the apololgists' response is ''ad hominem'', and then decline to discuss further.  Asserting this is not sufficient; he should demonstrate which parts of the rebuttal (if any) are ''ad hominem'', and reply to other substantive issues.
−
−	*'''Argument''': "Joseph Smith was an atrocious speller and could not write well.  He cannot have been a prophet."
−	*'''Rebuttal''': The merits of an argument should be debated independent of the style of presentation.
−	*'''See also:'''
−	** [[#Ad_hominem | Ad hominem]]
−	** [[#Misleading_vividness | Misleading vividness]]
−	** [[#Poisoning_the_well | Poisoning the well]]
−
−	== Syllogistic fallacies ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogistic_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	These fallacies are violations of the rules of logic.  Non-LDS examples have been chosen for simplicity.
−
−	=== Affirming a disjunct ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	Fallacy takes the form:
−	:Premise 1:A or B
−	:Premise 2:A
−	:Conclusion: Therefore, not B.
−
−	Error made: Premise 1 does not exclude both A and B being true.
−
−	=== Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_negative_premise Wikipedia entry]''
−	''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/conclusion_fall.html Lander Philosophy Link]]''
−
−	This fallacy occurs when there is one negative premise:
−
−	:Premise 1:No honest people steal.
−	:Premise 2:Honest people pay taxes.
−	:Conclusion:Therefore, some people who steal pay taxes.
−
−	Error made: One premise is negative, and yet a positive conclusion is drawn.
−
−	=== Existential fallacy ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''<br>
−	''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/existential_fall.html Lander Philosophy Link]''<br>
−
−	This fallacy has two universal premises, and draws a particular conclusion.
−
−	:Premise 1:All A are B
−	:Premise 2:No C are B
−	:Conclusion: Therefore, some B are not A.
−
−	This fallacy assumes that specific entities exist from universal declarations.
−
−	=== Fallacy of exclusive premises ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_exclusive_premises Wikipedia entry]''<br>
−	''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/existential_fall.html Lander Philosophy Link]''<br>
−
−	This fallacy uses two negative premises, to draw a third negative conclusion.
−
−	:Premise 1: No cats are reptiles.
−	:Premise 2: No reptiles are safe as pets.
−	:Conclusion: Therefore, no cats are safe as pets.
−
−	=== Fallacy of four terms  ===
−	(also called ''quaternio terminorum'') <br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms Wikipedia entry]''<br>
−	''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/four_fall.html Lander Philosophy Link]''
−
−	:Premise 1:Nothing is better than a good meal
−	:Premise 2:A poor meal is better than nothing.
−	:Conclusion: Therefore,a poor meal is better than a good meal, because:
−
−	Nothing > good meal, ''but''<br>
−	Poor meal > nothing, ''so''<br>
−	Poor meal >good meal.<br>
−
−	This is a fallacy because there are four terms in the syllogism.  The word "nothing" is being used in two different senses (see [[#Aphibology | Amphibology]]).  Thus, the syllogism is not:
−
−	:Premise 1:A > B
−	:Premise 2:C > A
−	:Conclusion: Therefore, C > B.  ''This would be a valid syllogism.''
−
−	Instead, what is acutally argued is:
−
−	:Premise 1:A > B
−	:Premise 2:C > D
−	:Conclusion: No conclusion can be drawn, because there are four terms:
−	::A = "Nothing in sense 1"
−	::B = "Good meal"
−	::C = "Poor meal"
−	::D = "Nothing in sense 2"
−
−	=== Fallacy of exclusive premises ===
−	(also called ''fallacy of two negative premises'')<br>
−	''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/exclusive_fall.html Lander philosophy link]''
−
−	:Premise 1:No human is a fish.
−	:Premise 2:No fish can breathe in outer space.
−	:Conclusion:Therefore, all humans can breathe in outer space.
−
−	Error made: Both premises are negative, yet a positive conclusion is reached.
−
−	=== Fallacy of the undistributed middle ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle Wikipedia entry]''<br>
−	''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/middle_fall.html Lander Philosophy Link]''<br>
−
−	:Premise 1: All FAIR apologists are Mormon
−	:Premise 2: George is a Mormon
−	:Conclusion: Therefore, George is a FAIR apologist.
−
−	In this case, the "middle" is the phrase "Mormon."  While it is clear that if George is an FAIR apologist, he is a Mormon, it is not clear that all Mormons are apologists.  Thus, Premise 1 tells us that:
−
−	* All FAIR apologists = Mormon, ''True''
−	* <strike>All Mormons = FAIR apologists</strike> ''False''
−	=== Illicit major ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illicit_major Wikipedia entry]''<br>
−	''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/illicit_fall.html Lander Philosophy Link]''<br>
−
−	:Premise 1: All FAIR apologists are Mormons.
−	:Premise 2: No general authorities are FAIR Apologists.
−	:Conclusion: Therefore, no general authorities are Mormons.
−
−	=== Illicit minor ===
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illicit_minor Wikipedia entry]''<br>
−	''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/illicit_fall.html Lander Philosophy Link]''<br>
−
−	:Premise 1: All FAIR apologists are Mormons
−	:Premise 2: All FAIR apologists use the internet
−	:Conclusion: All internet users are Mormons
−
−	==Further reading==
−
−	===External links===
−	*[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ Fallacy files]
−	*[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/syllogism_topics.html Introduction to Logic]
−	*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies Wikipedia entry on logical fallacies]
−	*[http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm Logical fallacies]
	[[Category:Reference]]		[[Category:Reference]]

---

Revision as of 18:30, 15 June 2009

Page 1

A FAIR Analysis of: Logical fallacies

Page 3

Ecological fallacy

Wikipedia entry

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.

• Argument: "All the Mormons I've met have never had a good response to the polygamy issue. Therefore, my apologist friend doesn't have a good answer to the polygamy issue."
• Rebuttal: Averages or stereotypes may reveal something true of some members of a group, but they say very little about a specific individual. If the average IQ is 100 in the United States, does that mean that everyone in the US has an IQ of 100?
• See also:
  • Faulty generalization.

Faulty generalization

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy makes a false general conclusion based upon individual cases. It is the inverse of fallacies of distribution.

Biased sample

Wikipedia entry

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.

• Argument: Mormons all feel oppressed in their religion but don't dare say anything--it's what all my friends on the ex-mormon recovery bulletin board experienced.
• Rebuttal: The experiences and perspectives of those writing about their 'ex-Mormon experiences' in public are not likely to be representative of the majority of Mormons. This is not to say that their perspectives are of no worth, but they have little utility in explaining how 'most' Mormons look at things, since they have chosen to leave while most Mormons have chosen to stay.

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.

• Argument: "Mormon bishops can't be trusted; I've seen bishops in the paper charged with sexual abuse."
• Rebuttal: The bishops who appear in the newspaper are not likely to be representative of Mormon bishops generally; the vast majority will go quietly about their work without being noticed or cited for committing crimes. Newspapers never print a headline reading "sun came up this morning in the east"; were the sun to rise in the west, that would be news. But, we would not then be justified in concluding that the sun tends to rise in the west.
• See also:
  • Statistical and mathematical fallacies

Hasty generalization

(Also called fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)

Wikipedia entry

This error is made because one does not study enough of a group to understand its characteristics.

• Argument: My Mormon friend cursed, drank, and shoplifted. Mormons sure don't live very upright lives."
• Rebuttal: The friend may not have been representative of Mormons generally. It is unfair to judge all Mormons based upon the actions of a few or one.
• See also:
  • Misleading vividness
  • Texas sharpshooter fallacy
  • Perfect solution fallacy
  • Statistical and mathematical fallacies

Overwhelming exception

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy makes a statement that is accurate, but has so many exceptions and caveats as to be meaningless or of little importance.

• Argument: "Mormons may have a Church named after Jesus, end every prayer in His name, believe He is the Son of God, have multiple books of scripture dedicated to teaching about Him, teach their members to emulate his life, believe that He is the only route to salvation, and do extensive acts of charity to non-believers, but aside from that they aren't Christian in any meaningful sense."
• Rebuttal: If none of that counts as "Christian in a meaningful sense," then of what real value does being or not being Christian have?
• See also:
  • Suppressed correlative

Genetic fallacy

(or "fallacy of origins")
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy assumes that the origin of an idea is related to whether it is true or not.

• Argument: "The first mention in the Bible of becoming like God comes from Satan in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, anyone who mentions becoming like God is Satanic."
• Rebuttal: The truth or falsehood of an idea does not depend on who advocates or opposes it. Jesus also mentioned becoming like God (See Matthew 5:48).
• See also:
  • Ad hominem
  • Bandwagon fallcy
  • Appeal to authority

Guilt by association

(also called Association fallacy)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy condemns an idea because of those who promote it.

• Argument: "Mormons were involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Therefore, Mormonism is a false religion that promotes violence and murder."
• Rebuttal: Virutally any idea can have some believer or advocate who is distasteful. This says nothing about whether the idea is true or not. (e.g. Hitler believed the sun rose in the east; this is true, despite Hitler's odious nature.)
• See also:
  • Ad hominem
  • Genetic fallacy

Historian's fallacy

Wikipedia entry

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.

• Argument: "Mormons claim Joseph Smith's First Vision was the beginning of the Restoration; Joseph should have publicized and focused upon it. That he did not shows that the idea of being a 'prophet' was a later invention." (See: First Vision accounts).
• Rebuttal: Events or facts that seem important or obvious in retrospect may not have been prominent (or even noticed) by those participating in the events. Joseph's First Vision was of personal importance to him, but it wasn't until the visits of Moroni and the translation of the Book of Mormon that Joseph seems to have understood his own role in producing the fulness of the gospel.
• See also:
  • Retrospective determinism

Homunculus fallacy

Wikipedia entry

Relevance for apologetics?

• Argument:
• Rebuttal:
• See also:

Ideology over reality

Wikipedia entry

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.

• Argument: "It doesn't matter if the Book of Mormon appears to be true scripture; the Bible says there can't be any more scripture, so the Book of Mormon must be false."
• Rebuttal: By definition, this fallacy rejects the evidence which might disprove it. Note that this fallacy does not challenge the evidence, but merely rejects it because it is inconsistent with the speaker's views.

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:

• the nature of scripture
• what the Bible actually teaches on an open versus closed cannon
• ideas about Biblical sufficiency and completeness

Some critics claim 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:

• explain why they do not find the evidence compelling
• demonstrate why the evidence is mis-stated or misleading
• introduce additional evidence which they feel is relevant
• See also:
  • Ad hominem
  • Appeal to authority

If-by-whiskey (argues both sides)

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy panders to the audience. It argues both sides of the question, and will therefore appear to support whichever opinion the listener has.

• Argument: "People have asked me if I'm in favor of freedom of religion. If you mean freedom to practice your faith according to conscience, of course I am. If you mean freedom for the Mormons to support their deceptive leaders, of course not--that should be regulated."
• Rebuttal: This statement tries to 'have it both ways' or be 'all things to all people.' It hopes that Mormons will hear the idea that they should be free to practice their faith. It also hopes that those who oppose the Mormons will hear the statement that the Mormons' evils (from the practice of their faith) will not be tolerated.

• See also:

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
Church leaders are “genuinely loving.”	In the next breath, we’re told that the leaders believe this love “requires that they mislead their followers”. The love is, therefore, a sham not worthy of the name: a ‘love’ that leads to manipulation and lying.
Church members are “well-intentioned, intelligent…with high standards of honesty, neighborliness….”	Despite this, we then get a bigoted description of how “the vast majority of the Mormon community” will react to the article. Members will either “not read [the article] because it is critical of Mormonism” or “be unaffected by it due to cognitive dissonance” 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.
Leaders are said to be "loving," and local leaders “are sincere and generally unaware of the issues”	However... leaders “breach the trust of faithful Mormons” leaders “distort…information to protect their own authority” “misled [people] as to how Mormonism started, and hence what it was” “deceive both [other] Church members and the public about important matters” their behavior is akin to that of “shady stock promoters” higher leaders “believe God’s will requires that they mislead their followers” leaders believe in “a moral obligation to lie to the ignorant masses when necessary to help them make good choices” 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.

Judgemental language

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy seeks to influence the audience by using inflammatory or prejudicial language.

• Argument: To whom should we listen, the mad ravings of a treasure-digging farm boy, or to the infallible Word of God?
• Rebuttal: The characterization of Joseph Smith is inflammatory and unfair, and seeks to bias the audience before his case can be made.
• See also:
  • Ad hominem
  • Appeal to authority
  • Appeal to belief
  • Appeal to the majority
  • Appeal to tradition
  • Argument from repetition
  • Argument ad numerum
  • Bandwagon fallacy
  • Begging the question
  • False premise
  • Ideology over reality
  • No true Scotsman
  • Poisoning the well
  • Straw man

Irrelevant conclusion

(also called Ignoratio elenchi)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy makes a logical argument, but the argument does not prove what the critic claims it does.

• See also:
  • Red herring

Intentional fallacy

Wikipedia entry

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

• Argument:
• Rebuttal:
• See also:

Meaningless statement

Wikipedia entry

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

• Argument: "Mormon doctrine is red, and therefore false."
• Rebuttal: Saying doctrine is "red" is meaningless, since doctrines do not have color. One cannot confirm or deny the claim that Mormon doctrine is false, because the premise is meaningless.

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.

• Argument: "Mormon's aren't Christians, they just claim to worship Christ as the Son of God and Savior."
• Rebuttal: Being a Christian is worshiping Jesus as Son of God and Savior; the claim is absurd and meaningless.

• See also:

Middle ground

(also called argumentum ad temperantiam)
Wikipedia entry

The fallacy presumes that the logical place to find truth is between extreme points of view.

• Argument: "Mormons say the Book of Mormon was an ancient record; critics say it was a complete forgery. Therefore, it was probably a somewhat inspired 'pious fiction.'"
• Rebuttal: Truth may be on one extreme, or in a middle way. This must be proved, not assumed. It should be noted that appeals to the "middle way" are sometimes merely disguised forms of one extreme 'dressed up' to seem more tolerant and appealing. In the above example, the middle route ("pious fiction") is really just a kinder way of saying the same thing: Joseph faked the Book of Mormon, and it is not an ancient record. This fallacy often falsely assumes that there is a middle route; for some questions (e.g. whether God appeared to Joseph) there is no middle ground--either He appeared to Joseph or He didn't.
• See also:
  • False compromise

Misleading vividness

Wikipedia entry

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.

• Argument: "Don't be baptized as a Mormon. I had a friend who was baptized, and the next day they were hit by a car, their house burned down, and their dog died."
• Rebuttal: Such anecdotes are not a reliable gage to what is likely to happen if one is baptized.
• See also:
  • Hasty generalization
  • Slippery slope
  • Texas sharpshooter fallacy
  • Perfect solution fallacy