Difference between revisions of "Logical fallacies/Page 1"

Revision as of 18:21, 15 June 2009 (view source) GregSmith (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by GregSmith (Talk) to last revision by RogerNicholson) ← Older edit		Revision as of 18:23, 15 June 2009 (view source) GregSmith (talk | contribs) m Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	{{draft}}	+	* [[Logical fallacies/Page 2|Go to '''PAGE TWO''' (H to Z)]]
	== Ad hominem  ==		== Ad hominem  ==
	(also called ''argumentum ad hominem'' or ''personal attack'')<br>		(also called ''argumentum ad hominem'' or ''personal attack'')<br>
Line 645:		Line 645:
	** [[#Ad_hominem| Ad hominem]]		** [[#Ad_hominem| Ad hominem]]
	** [[#Genetic_fallacy | Genetic fallacy]]		** [[#Genetic_fallacy | Genetic fallacy]]
−
−	== Historian's fallacy ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_%28literary_and_historical_analysis%29 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|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 | Retrospective determinism]]
−
−	== Homunculus fallacy ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_fallacy Wikipedia entry]''
−
−	''Relevance for apologetics?''
−
−	*'''Argument''':
−	*'''Rebuttal''':
−	*'''See also:'''
−	**
−
−	== Ideology over reality ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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_canon_vs._closed_canon | open versus closed cannon]]
−	* ideas about [[Biblical_completeness | 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 | Ad hominem]]
−	** [[#Appeal_to_authority | Appeal to authority]]
−
−	== If-by-whiskey (argues both sides) ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey 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.
−
−	<table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0">
−	<tr valign="top">
−	<td width="50%">'''Begins positive...'''</td>
−	<td width="50%">'''...undercuts with negative'''</td>
−	</tr><tr valign="top">
−	<td>
−	*Church leaders are “genuinely loving.”</td>
−	<td>
−	*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.</td>
−	</tr>
−	<tr valign="top">
−	<td>
−	*Church members are “well-intentioned, intelligent…with high standards of honesty, neighborliness….”</td>
−	<td>
−	*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]]”
−
−	<br>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.</td></tr>
−	<tr valign="top">
−	<td>
−	*Leaders are said to be "loving," and local leaders “are sincere and generally unaware of the issues”</td>
−	<td>
−	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”
−	<br>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.</td></tr>
−
−	</table>
−
−	<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.
−
−	== Judgemental language ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 | Ad hominem]]
−	** [[#Appeal_to_authority | Appeal to authority]]
−	** [[#Appeal_to_belief | Appeal to belief]]
−	** [[#Appeal_to_the_majority | Appeal to the majority]]
−	** [[#Appeal_to_tradition | Appeal to tradition]]
−	** [[#Argument_from_repetition | Argument from repetition]]
−	** [[#Argumentum_ad_numerum | Argument ad numerum]]
−	** [[#Bandwagon_fallacy | Bandwagon fallacy]]
−	** [[#Begging_the_question | Begging the question]]
−	** [[#False_premise | False premise]]
−	** [[#Ideology_over_reality | Ideology over reality]]
−	** [[#No_true_Scotsman | No true Scotsman]]
−	** [[#Poisoning_the_well | Poisoning the well]]
−	** [[#Straw_man | Straw man]]
−
−	== Irrelevant conclusion  ==
−	(also called ''Ignoratio elenchi'')<br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 | Red herring]]
−
−
−	== Intentional fallacy ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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''': [[Latter-day_Saints_aren%27t_Christians | "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'') <br>
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground 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 | False compromise]]
−
−	== Misleading vividness ==
−	''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 | Hasty generalization]]
−	** [[#Slippery_slope | Slippery slope]]
−	** [[#Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy | Texas sharpshooter 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]

---

Revision as of 18:23, 15 June 2009

• Go to PAGE TWO (H to Z)

Ad hominem

(also called argumentum ad hominem or personal attack)
Wikipedia entry

See also:

• Appeal to spite

This fallacy attacks the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.

It is important to note that there is at least one case when an attack upon the speaker is not fallacious, but actually appropriate. If a witness is making a statement about certain facts or events, and if the witness can be shown to be unreliable (e.g. he has lied about other issues) then this is a legitimate attack. One cannot challenge a person's logical argument on these grounds, but one can challenge the evidence which they themselves present.

• Fallacious: E.D. Howe ought to be ignored because he was a drinker.
• Proper: E.D. Howe has been shown to have lied about what Joseph wrote in example #1, #2, and #3. Why should we then believe Howe when he tells us what he personally observed, since he has been willing to lie in order to discredit Joseph?

• See also:
  • Red herring

ad hominem abusive

(also called argumentum ad personam)

Wikipedia entry

• Argument: This fallacy is one of the most commonly used, and has been used since the earliest days of the Church to discredit Joseph Smith. Joseph was often the target of such efforts; many of the early anti-Mormon "affidavits" against Joseph and his family (charging them with laziness, corruption, 'money-digging', immoral life, and the like) were designed to attack the messengers because the message was unpalatable.
• Rebuttal: Brigham Young encountered such tactics frequently, and his response is appropriate:

I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I ws personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on, brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.

—Brigham Young, "The Gospel Like a Net Cast Into the Sea, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 9 November 1856, Vol. 4 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1857), 77–78.

• See also:
  • Poisoning the well

ad hominem circumstantial

(also called ad hominem circumstantiae)
Wikipedia entry

• Argument: This fallacy argues that a person makes an argument because of his circumstances. "Well, of course a Mormon would make that argument, since they can't bear to admit their faith might be wrong." Appeals to cognitive dissonance as a non-explanation often fall into this category.
• Rebuttal: A person may well have many motivations for making an argument. However, one must confront the argument itself. Critics attempt to use this tactic to dismiss anything a member of the Church has to say about a topic. With members excluded, only non-Mormon (or anti-Mormon) authors have any 'credibility.' Note too that the same fallacious argument can be turned back on any critic—the critic is not a member, and so may have a vested interested in disproving a religion that makes uncompromising truth claims, calls on them to repent, etc. Thus, the argument is impotent in any case, since it can be applied with equal force to both sides.

• See also:

ad hominem tu quoque

(also called you too argument)
Wikipedia entry

• Argument: This fallacy argues that "because you are guilty of the same thing of which you are accusing me, your accusation is meritless."

A common example is for critics to respond to charges that they have used dishonest or inaccurate footnotes by pointing out that some of Hugh Nibley's footnotes were inaccurate.

• Rebuttal: One might be a hypocrite for criticizing someone for something of which one is guilty, but this does not make the claim any less true. If one murderer tells another murderer he is a killer, this does not make the claim untrue. Nibley's footnotes being inaccurate are irrelevent to the question of whether the critic has used misleading footnotes. Even if every Nibley footnote is wrong, this does not excuse the critic from his own mistakes. (Note that an attack on Nibley's footnotes might be appropriate if the apologist was citing an inaccurate Nibley footnote as evidence for a position.)
• See also:
  • Two wrongs make a right

Amphibology

(also called amphiboly)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy draws a false conclusion because of grammatical ambiguity. Often, a word can be understood in two different senses, making the argument either false or unclear.

• Example:

Q:Did he say he would read the Book of Mormon?

A:He was cool about it.

Based upon the answer, one could argue either that:

• the person was unenthusastic about reading the Book of Mormon ("cool" in the sense of "not passionate about")
• the person was willing to read the Book of Mormon ("cool" in a slang sense of "willing to do something he didn't have to")

• See also:
  • Downplaying the King Follet discourse - a good example of this problem at work

Appeal to authority

(also called argumentum ad verecundiam or argument by authority)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy relies on a report of what someone (e.g. a scholar) or something (e.g. a sacred text like the Bible) says about a topic, rather than considering the evidence (if any) upon which such opinions may be based.

• Argument: The Smithsonian institute says that the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with ancient America. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is not an ancient work.
• Rebuttal: While the Smithsonian doubtless has experts on the subject of ancient America, it is not necessarily clear that those experts have taken the Book of Mormon and its evidences seriously. A much more persuasive argument would be for a Smithsonian expert to examine the evidence advanced by Book of Mormon proponents, and explain why it does or does not integrate with what is known about ancient America.

Especially in highly technical fields, a referral to what authorities think about a topic may be a good gauge of what the evidence currently tells us; however, in case of disagreement it is much better to consider the primary evidence itself.

• See also:
  • Appeal to belief
  • Genetic fallacy

Variations on this fallacy

• The authority cited is not an expert in this field - e.g. A Biblical scholar might be very knowledgeable in his own field, but know relatively little about the Book of Mormon.
• An authority is miscited or misunderstood - e.g. LDS prophets are experts on LDS doctrine, but the critic may have misrepresented their position. See Selective or Distorted Quotation
• The extent of the authority is not appreciated - e.g. LDS prophets are experts, but they are not considered infallible. Their statements are not doctrinally binding unless ratified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. See General Authorities' Statements as Scripture
• The authority may be biased - e.g. an atheist may be predisposed to disregard any evidence which would suggest that Joseph Smith saw God. Likewise, a Mormon might be predisposed to overlook evidence which questioned Joseph's truthfulness.
• The authority might not represent his field - e.g. Citing a general authority who was later disciplined or excommunicated is not an honest way to reflect the 'consensus' of LDS belief.
• An anonymous authority is cited - e.g. ("studies show...", "it has been demonstrated," "a source at Church headquarters who wishes to remain unnamed," "a friend of mine," etc.) By refusing to identify the authority, the speaker makes it impossible for the audience to verify the authority's credentials, assess bias, determine which evidence was used in forming the opinion, verify how accurately the authority has been cited, or even decide if the authority exists at all. (For example, during the Mark Hofmann forgery incident, Hoffman gave anonymous tips to the media about a non-existant "Oliver Cowdery History" which he claimed was in the Church vault.)

Appeal to belief

Wikipedia entry

In apologetics, this might also be called the appeal to unbelief. It asserts that something must be true simply because most people (including, perhaps, the reader) believes it.

• Argument: "Everyone knows God doesn't speak to man"; "all Christians accept that the Bible canon is closed"; "everyone knows religious people are deluded."
• Rebuttal: History is full of ideas which were once believed by nearly everyone (e.g. the sun orbits the earth, bleeding the sick with leeches will help them get better) and which are now known to be false.
• See also:
  • Appeal to authority - the 'authority' in this case is 'public opinion' or 'everyone'
  • Cognitive dissonance
  • Appeal to tradition

Appeal to consequences

(also called argumentum ad consequentiam)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy argues that because of the negative consequences of accepting a premise, the premise must therefore be false.

• Argument: "Being a member of the Mormon Church caused negative consequence X in my life. Therefore, I should not have been a member, and the Church is false."
• Rebuttal: Some truths may be unpleasant, but do not cease to be true simply because the consequences of their truth are not desired. (e.g. Just because it would destroy everything I own if my house burned down, it does not therefore follow that my house is not on fire.)
• See also:
  • Appeal to fear
  • Argumentum ad hominem (circumstantial)
  • Slippery slope
  • Wishful thinking

Appeal to emotion

Wikipedia entry

• See also:
  • Appeal to poverty
  • Appeal to wealth

These fallcies appeal to the emotion, rather than the reason, of the audience.

Appeal to fear

(also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem)
Wikipedia entry

This fallcy plays on the fears or biases of the audience.

• Argument: Mormons will not be saved, because they do not accept my conception of Jesus.
• Rebuttal: Fear of not being saved should not press us to accept someone's conception of Jesus unless that conception strikes us as truthful emotionally, logically, and spiritually.

• See also:
  • Appeal to force
  • Red herring
  • Slippery slope

Appeal to flattery

Wikipedia entry

This approach appeals the audience's vanity.

• Argument: "Only those who are intellectually and emotionally honest can 'face the truth' about Mormonism." (And, by implication, if one disagrees with the speaker's version of truth, one is not emotionally or intellectually honest.)
• Rebuttal: The acceptance of the speaker's position is the point at issue. If their position is false, then it is neither intellectually or emotionally honest to agree with them. This is often a form of begging the question.
• See also:
  • ad hominem
  • Red herring

Appeal to the majority

(also called argumentum ad populum)
See Appeal to belief

Appeal to pity

(also called argumentum ad misericordiam)
Wikipedia entry

This tactic plays on the audience's sympathies.

• Argument: "We can't reject Joseph Smith's claims, because the pioneers suffered so much for it."; "My arguments against the Mormon Church are true, since I caused myself family problems by apostatizing."
• Rebuttal: People can suffer for a false cause; the energy and effort dedicated to something is not evidence for its truthfulness.
• See also:
  • Red herring

Appeal to ridicule

Wikipedia entry

This tactic (mis)states an opponent's beliefs in a way that distorts them, and makes them appear ridiculous. The audience will then conclude that something so foolish cannot be defended.

This is a favorite tactic of the anti-Mormon industry; their characterizations of LDS belief and doctrine are seldom complete.

• Argument:
  • "Mormons believe they will be gods and rule their own planets."
  • "Mormons think God talks to farmboys."
  • "[Y]ou don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles; it is just that simple."
    - Sterling M. McMurrin, "An Interview with Sterling M. McMurrin," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17 (Spring 1984): 18-43.
  • The golden plates were conveniently taken back by the angel so no one could have the trouble to examine them!"

• Rebuttal: To understand a belief or argument, it is always best to let a believer or proponent of an argument explain it. Any belief or idea can be made to appear ridiculous with loaded language or misleading characterizations—this is especially true of an idea that is new to an audience.
• See also:
  • Red herring
  • Straw man
  • The God Makers

Appeal to spite

(also called argumentum ad odium)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy presents the audience with the opportunity to get some sort of 'revenge' by agreeing with the speaker. The poor quality of reasoning often seen on some anti-Mormon message boards and chat rooms is an excellent example of this fallacy at work: the participants are hurt and angry about the Church for a variety of reasons, and so will not dispute anything negative which someone might have to say about the Church or a Church member, even if libelous or absurd.

• Argument: "Church leaders betrayed you, so they routinely plan to deceive and control people."
• Rebuttal: Even if someone did something hurtful or wrong, it does not follow that everything they do is hurtful or wrong, or that the present argument against them is accurate. Hitler was a moral monster, but it does not then follow that he was also a cannibal.
• See also:
  • Ad hominem
  • Red herring

Two wrongs make a right

Wikipedia entry

• Argument: The LDS committed some (real or imagined) wrong, therefore a dishonest or inappropriate tactic on the critics' part is held to be not serious. Critics who believe that the Church is a Satanic organization, or a brand of false religion often accept the rationale that "the end justifies the means" or that "lying for Jesus" is acceptable.
• Rebuttal: Whatever the Mormons' faults or errors, dishonest debating or polemnics do not help in the search for truth. They also ill-become those who claim to be Christians.

• See also
  • Ad hominem tu quoque
  • Quote mining, selective quotation, and distortion
  • Red herring

Wishful thinking

Wikipedia entry’’

This fallacy asserts what the audience hopes or wishes were true. Their desire to believe leaves them content to avoid examining the evidence too closely.

• Argument: "There is no evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient volume."
• Rebuttal: There is, in fact, a great deal of such evidence. One must examine and rebut it, not simply make blanket claims.
• See also:
  • Red herring

Appeal to motive

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy seeks to discredit an opponent by questioning his/her motives. Sometimes it is merely suggested that motive is possible without demonstrating its reality.

• Argument: "Apologists aren't worth listening to, because they are Mormons."; "Brigham Young's opinion on Joseph Smith's character cannot be trusted, because Brigham was an apostle and utterly committed to Mormonism."
• Rebuttal: The quality of an argument does not depend on who makes it.

Note that any argument along these lines used against a member of the Church can also be used against any critic of the Church, who may have motives for disagreeing with the Church that have a religious or personal basis. This is why only the facts should be considered.

• See also:
  • Ad hominem

Appeal to novelty

(also called argumentum ad novitatem)

Wikipedia entry

The fallacy argues that because an idea or product is new, it is therefore superior to what has gone before.

• Argument: "My book on Joseph Smith is based on the latest published work. My account of his life and actions is therefore more reliable than the worn accounts of yesteryear."
• Rebuttal: The novelty of an idea is no gauge of its accuracy. We are accustomed to things constantly 'improving' in science and technology, but this is not a fixed rule. One must judge the evidence upon which a "new" interpretation is based.
• See also:
  • Appeal to tradition

Appeal to probability

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy assumes that because something is theoretically possible is therefore inevitably true.

• Argument: "A shot was fired at Joseph Smith's house when he was a young man. It's possible that this was from an angry father of a girl he had dishonored, so this is one more piece of evidence that Joseph may have been a rake."
• Rebuttal: Virtually any scenario can be said to be possible on some level. Those who make arguments about history can often get away with such statements, by couching them in the knowledge of "it may be," "perhaps," "we might conclude," etc. Weasel words are often a warning that the author is engaging in this fallacy.
• See also:
  • Slippery slope

Appeal to tradition

(also called argumentum ad antiquitatem or appeal to common practice)

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy presumes that an older idea is better than a new one.

• Argument: "Christians have believed in the Nicene Creed for nearly two thousand years!"
• Rebuttal: Old ideas are not necessarily true: many false ideas have been believed foe millenia. (e.g. Most human cultures have believed that the stars can foretell or control human destiny, and that astrology can reveal these matters.)
• See also:
  • Appeal to belief
  • Appeal to novelty

Argument from fallacy

(also called argumentum ad logicam)

Wikipedia entry

This argument assumes that because an argument advanced for an idea is false, the idea itself must be false.

• Argument: "I have shown that FAIR's paper on Book of Mormon evidences contains false conclusions. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is a fraud."; "The missionaries couldn't answer the questions I threw at them; therefore the Church must not be true."
• Rebuttal: A bad argument for a position does not mean that good arguments do not exist. Scholarship is an on-going investigation and discussion, and one expects to have to change at least some of one's conclusions. Proving a supporting argument wrong does not, however, relieve a critic of the necessity of providing supporting evidence for their own position.
• See also:
  • Negative proof
  • Shifting the burden of proof

Argument from ignorance

(also called argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy argues that because someone (usually the speaker and audience, but sometimes the proponent) cannot explain something, it did not happen. Or, because the speaker cannot imagine how something could be, it therefore cannot be.

• Argument: "If you can't prove to me exactly what a spiritual witness is, spiritual witnesses don't exist--they're just effects of your mind."; "My bishop couldn't answer my questions about Church history, therefore there are no good answers and the Church has been hiding this from me!"
• Rebuttal:
  • Not being able to explain something does not prove its nonexistence. Science is a process by which things which have not been explained become explained. If it were not possible for things to be true that are unexplained, science could not progress in knowledge.
  • It is unreasonable to expect every person to be able to explain every issue, in or out of the Church. One should rather evaluate the answers of those who claim to have answers, rather than claiming that no response from someone means that there is no response possible from anyone.
  • Very often, there is an explanation for a perplexing issue. (Part of FAIR's role is to provide such explanations.) However, critics are often not interested in understanding things from an LDS point of view, and so they do not have the background to see how a thoughtful member of the Church might resolve something they consider 'impossible' to resolve.

• See also:
  • Argument from silence
  • Negative proof

Argument from silence

(also called argumentum ex silentio)
Wikipedia entry

This argument has a legitimate and illegitimate form. The proper form occurs when a person claims to have certain information, but consistently fails to produce it.

Proper Argument:"You claimed you had a good explanation for apologetic argument X. You have failed to produce that argument or point me to a resource which could provide it. It is therefore fair to conclude that you do not have such an explanation, since there is nothing which should prevent you from providing it."

The fallacious use of this argument occurs when one concludes that any silence must represent an admission of guilt, or an admission of ignorance.

• Argument: "He refused to testify in court, therefore he must be guilty."
• Rebuttal: Another reason for failure to testify might have been that the accused has a constitutional right not to testify if the defense feels it will help his case. This cannot lead to a presumption of guilt.

• Argument: "The Church has not responded to my claims; they must therefore have no answers and my charges must be true."
• Rebuttal: The Church might not reply because they have no answer. Or, they might have institutional reasons for not replying, since doing so distracts them from work they consider more important. Or, they may not be aware of a person's charges. Or, a reply might have been given by others which the speaker is choosing to ignore.

• Argument: "You will not tell me about x, connected with the temple, therefore my charges are true."
• Rebuttal: There are some things (including, but not limited to, temple worship) which the LDS consider too sacred to discuss. They may prefer silence to having cherished beliefs mocked or exposed to public debate.

• See also:
  • Argument from ignorance
  • Negative proof

Appeal to force

(also called ‘’Argumentum ad baculum’’)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy appeals to the threat of force.

• Argument: "Convert or die!"; "Don't be baptized a Mormon or you're out of the will!"
• Rebuttal: Threat of force says nothing about truthfulness. Indeed, resorting to force may suggest (but not prove) that one has no better arguments to make.
• See also:
  • Appeal to fear

Appeal to wealth

(also called ‘’ Argumentum ad crumenam’’)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy argues that a claim is true because the subject is wealthy. By converse, it may argue that being poor is morally suspect, and thus a poor target is argued against.

• Argument: "This book must be accurate, it has sold more copies than any other on the topic!"
• Rebuttal: Wealth may be fairly or ill-gotten, regardless of truth or falsehood. This is often another form of the argument from the majority or popularity, since financial success may be the product of popularity (e.g. the book sold very well) or the cause of it (e.g. society tends to favor and fawn on the rich).
• See also:
  • Appeal to emotion
  • Appeal to poverty

Appeal to poverty

(also called ‘’Argumentum ad lazarum’’)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy argues that a claim is true because the subject is poor. By converse, it may argue that wealth is morally suspect, and thus a rich target is argued against.

• Argument: "The Church is a billion-dollar corporation, and can't be trusted."
• Rebuttal: There was a time when the Church was poor. Does this mean that it should have been trusted then, but cannot be trusted now because it has money?
• See also:
  • Appeal to emotion
  • Appeal to wealth

Argument from repetition

(also called ‘’Argumentum ad nauseam’’)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy tries to support its position by repeating the same claims over and over again. It is another favorite of the anti-Mormon industry.

• Argument: "Mormons aren't Christians"; "There cannot be scripture outside the Bible".
• Rebuttal: A false statement is false, whether uttered once or a thousand times. This seems clear when stated like this, but political propagandists have long understood that a relatively simple message, repeated over and over again, will eventually be accepted as true by a large portion of the audience. The "talking points" of modern spin doctors is a good example of this technique in action.
• See also:
  • Proof by verbosity

Argumentum ad numerum

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy argues that if a large number of people believe something, it must be true.

• See:
  • Appeal to authority
  • Appeal to belief
  • Cognitive dissonance
  • Appeal to tradition
  • Bandwagon fallacy

Bandwagon fallacy

(also called appeal to popularity, appeal to the people, or argumentum ad populum)
Wikipedia entry

• Argument: If Mormonism is true then all people from other religions would join it.
• Rebuttal: What is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular.
• 'See:
  • Appeal to authority
  • Appeal to belief
  • Cognitive dissonance
  • Appeal to tradition
  • Argumentum ad numerum

Begging the question

(also called petitio principii, circular argument or circular reasoning)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy assumes, as part of the argument, that which the argument is intended to prove.

• Argument:

Premise 1: Assume that Christians can only accept the Bible as scripture.

Premise 2: Mormons accept scripture other than the Bible

Conclusion: Therefore, Mormons are not Christians.

• Rebuttal: The critic begins with an assumption (Christians can only accept the Bible) which he knows will automatically exclude the LDS. He must, however, first prove this assumption to be true. When stated baldly as above, the circularity is obvious, so critics often treat premise #1 as a 'given' or something that the audience will assume 'must' be true without spelling it out explicitly. The argument will then take the form of "Mormons accept scripture besides the Bible, so they can't be Christians" (premise 1 is here implied but not stated).
• See also:
  • Bandwagon fallacy
  • Fallacy of many questions
  • False premise

Cartesian fallacy

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy describes those who assume (without proving) that the mind is completely separate from the body.

• Argument: Brain scans of meditation monks reveal brain changes; this proves that "spiritual experiences" are all brain illusions.
• Rebuttal: LDS theology does not teach a separation of matter and spirit into totally separate categories (see DC 131꞉7-8. LDS would find it strange if spiritual experiences did not have physical analogues, though such analogues might be undetectable at present. Furthermore, the claim that all "spiritual experiences" are equivalent is an unproven and unwarranted assumption.
• See also:

Correlative based fallacies

Wikipedia entry

• See also:

Fallacy of many questions

(also called complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question or plurium interrogationum)
Wikipedia entry

This fallacy asks a question in a way that presumes something which has not been proven. The classic example is, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Whether one answers, "Yes," or "No," the implication that the respondent has beat his wife at some point remains.

• Argument: "Are Mormons now trying to appear more Christian by emphasizing the doctrines which speak of basic Christian principles because they think this will appeal to broader society?"
• Rebuttal: This statement presumes there was a time when the Saints did not consider themselves Christian, or when they had doctrines which they did not consider to be focused on Christ. In fact, the LDS have always seen themselves as Christian and all their doctrines centered on Christ. Different emphases might be due, for example, to the fact that American society as a whole is less overtly Christian than in the earlier days of the Church, so the LDS must emphasize doctrines (such as the virgin birth and the divine Sonship of Christ) which would have been accepted by the majority of citizens in Joseph Smith's day.
• See also:
  • Begging the question

False dilemma

(also called false dichotomy, bifurcation, or the either/or fallacy)
Wikipedia entry

• Argument: "We must accept either the testimony of the Bible or the teachings of Joseph Smith."
• Rebuttal: The statement implies that Joseph Smith's witness and a belief in the Bible are fundamentally incompatible. However, it may be, for example, that there is a third way that the statement does not consider. It could be that one's false perceptions of Biblical inerrancy and sufficiency are all that need to be rejected in order to enjoy the benefits of both ancient and modern prophetic witness.
• See also:
  • Package deal fallacy
  • Denying the correlative

Denying the correlative

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy can be thought of as the opposite of the false dilemma. It tries to introduce a third option where none exists.

• Argument:"We need to get away from the question of whether Joseph was a true prophet or a fraud. Joseph believed he was a prophet, and this is what matters."
• Rebuttal: Believing you are a prophet does not make you a prophet. It makes little difference whether Joseph was a conscious fraud or sincerely deceived if one's key question is whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's true church. This 'third' option is really just the same old claim ("Joseph was a fraud") dressed up in less inflammatory language.
• See also:
  • False compromise
  • False dilemma

Suppressed correlative

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy tries to redefine two mutually exclusive options in such a way as to make one option 'part' of the other, and to thus exclude it from consideration.

For example, here speaker Abe tries to prove that no one is "stupid":

Bill: John sure is ugly.

Abe: John isn't ugly, he's much better looking than my dog.

Bill: But, your dog is hideous!

Abe: But, my dog is prettier than a tarantula. So, John is really handsome!

Note how 'ugly' in Abe's use of this fallacy becomes a subset of 'beautiful,' so no one or anything can be said to be 'ugly' at all.

• Argument:

Critic: Joseph Smith was a liar about his spiritual experiences.

Mormon: Joseph Smith was either a sincere, devout man who truly believed God had spoken to him, or he was a calculating liar. Reading his journals and letters clearly shows that he was sincere. I therefore reject the idea that he was intentionally deceiving others, especially since to pull off his 'scam,' he would have had to come up with metal plates to deceive the witnesses, convinced or persuade others to lie for him, etc.

Critic: No, Joseph was lying and knew it. But, he decided that by telling his lies and forging a book of scripture, he would enhance people's faith. He was a fraud, but a 'pious one'--a liar who meant well and had the highest motivations.

• Rebuttal: Note how "sincere and devout" is absorbed into "liar." The critic's formulation essentially rules out the possibility of Joseph being honestly convinced of his claims. He was, for the critic, either a fraud for base reasons, or a fraud for sincere reasons. What the critic hopes to distract us from, however, is the idea that it is inconsistent for someone to be a humble, devout person who decides that 'lying for God' is a great idea through massive deceit, forgery, trickery, and exploitation of others.

So, the critic is trying to sound kind and offer a middle of the road position to appear broad-minded; what he has really done is given the reader a choice between Joseph as liar and fraud or Joseph as liar and fraud.

Variants of this approach are the current vogue for 'secular' critics' explanations of Joseph Smith.

• See also:
  • False compromise
  • False dilemma
  • Overwhelming exception

Equivocation

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy uses the same term in two different ways, while implying or assuming that the word has the same meaning in both cases.

Need LDS example if possible

• Argument:
• Rebuttal:
• See also:
  • Amphibology/Amphiboly

False analogy

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy occurs when the speaker draws an analogy or comparison between two items. These items are then (falsely) assumed to be the same in some way because of the analogy, and not traits of the items themselves.

• Argument: "Mormonism is like Islam because both have a modern prophet (Joseph and Mohammad) and new scripture (the Book of Mormon and the Qu'ran). Therefore, Mormonism is not Christian, since Muslims don't worship Jesus."
• Rebuttal: There are some similarities between Mormonism and Islam, but these similarities do not include the faiths' attitude toward Jesus; Mormons worship Christ as the Son of God, while Muslims regard Him as a great prophet only.
• See also:
  • Straw man

False premise

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy uses incorrect starting points for the argument; thus, while logically correct (the argument follows from the premises) the argument is still false because the premises do not reflect reality.

Many anti-Mormon arguments are predicated on false premises.

• Argument:

Premise #1: The Book of Mormon claims to be the story of all Amerindians. (false)

Premise #2: Some Amerindians are clearly not of Middle Eastern origin. (true)

Conclusion: Therefore, the Book of Mormon is not an accurate record.

• Rebuttal: The conclusion follows logically, but is a false conclusion because the first premise is false. (See: DNA, Demographics)
• See also:
  • Begging the question

False compromise

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy offers two possibilities on either extremes, and then argues that the truth must lie 'somewhere in the middle'.

• Argument: "Mormons claim Joseph Smith was commanded to implement polygamy. Harsh anti-Mormons say that Joseph did it for lascivious motives. The truth is probably that Joseph was sincere but mistaken in what God wanted."
• Rebuttal: We often seek compromises, and so this approach seems evenhanded and tolerant. However, sometimes the truth really does lie on one side or other other; the middle route proposed is in error despite not being as extreme as one side.
• See also:
  • Denying the correlative
  • Middle ground fallacy

Fallacies of distribution:

Wikipedia entry

This fallacy assumes that there is no difference in traits between the compositive (an entire class or group) and the distributive (each member of a class or group).

Composition

Wikipedia entry

Need good LDS examples of this

• Argument: Blood cells are invisible to the naked eye. Therefore, you cannot see blood.
• Rebuttal: Groups of things may have properties which the parts do not. I can lift every individual component of my Ford car. It does not follow that I can then lift my entire car over my head when it is assembled.
• See also:
  • Division fallacy of distribution

Division

Wikipedia entry

Need good LDS examples of this

• Argument: The brain is a self-aware organ. Therefore, neurons (the parts of the brain) are self-aware.
• Rebuttal: Groups of things may have properties which the parts do not--my Ford car can go 150 km/h; my car's windshield can not reach that speed by itself.
• See also:
  • Composition fallacy of distribution

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