Fallacies
"What are fallacies?"
well i define fallacies as:
a bad argument,an error in an argument.
And today i am gonna show people some of the fallacies which some (including christians) commit very often,so,here they are:
-the God of the gaps fallacy:
The term "God of the gaps fallacy" can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy
"aren't you doing that when you talk about God and the big bang and the other stuff?"
i mean no not really,i am just giving the most likely explanation,the best explanation,and i mean if we take it by the big bang,the kalam,and the fine tuning argument,it seems to me like God is the only explanation,and it's not like there's some unknown phenomenon which makes the universe fine tuned,it seems to me like design just is the best explanation for that,and for these in general.
and i mean when saying that i commit the God of the gaps fallacy you are probably assuming (this is what most atheists do from what i have seen) that science will one day explain everything,which i believe is clearly false.
-The genetic fallacy:When you try to disprove someone's point/worldview by telling them how they came to believe it
example:you only believe in the christian God because you were raised in the U.S.A,if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would've been a muslim,if you were born in India you would've been a hindu.
-The phonic fallacy:you commit the phonic fallacy when you say that 2 words sound the same/alike and therefore they mean the same thing.
example:"Grec (Romanian) and greek (English) sound alike and therefore they mean the same thing"
Grec and Greek do mean the same thing but it would be a fallacy to come to that conclusion just by the fact that they sound alike.
-The equivocation fallacy:when you redefine how someone is using a term
example:''iphones evolved over time''
''well iphones aren't really organisms so they cannot really evolve the way animals and humans did over time"
if you said this you just committed the equivocation fallacy,you redefined the term ''evolved"
-The straw man fallacy:when you miss represent what someone said.
example:
christian:life is meaningless if God does not exist,you are not designed for a purpose,however,that does not prove that God exists.
someone else (sometimes even christians will straw man you if you say things like this so that's why i used the term ''someone"):
oh,so life is meaningless on an atheistic perspective and therefore,that must prove that God exists?
by the way,this is what actually happened in the debate in mexico with W.L.C and Richard Dawkins.
-The fallacy of composition:
when you say for example:
a part of X has this property,therefore the whole X has this property.
-The Ad hominem fallacy:
When you attack a person's character or attributes in order to disprove/discredit their argument.
-Ad populum fallacy:
you commit the ad populum fallacy when you say something must be true because many people or the majority of people say so.
example:
most people say bats are blind,therefore,bats must be blind.
-The false dilemma fallacy (also called ''a false dichotomy"
When you say something is either/or without considering all the possibilities
example:it's either religion or science
it's either love America or leave America.
-The hasty generalization fallacy:
Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or average situation.
example:i ate a lot of pizza and never got fat,therefore,no one gets fat from eating a lot of pizza.
exception:When statistics of a larger population are not available, and a decision must be made or opinion formed if the small sample size is all you have to work with, then it is better than nothing.
-The slothful induction fallacy:
this fallacy occurs when someone refuses to draw the appropriate conclusion from a clearly recognized pattern; the phrase “despite overwhelming evidence” is an indication that someone is about to commit this fallacy. Their refusal to accept what is most likely true is usually due to either their not really caring about the truth or their having a vested interest in their position (for example, cognitive dissonance occurs when someone is emotionally invested in a position and therefore likely to dismiss evidence against their position).
-The anecdotal fallacy:
you commit the anecdotal fallacy when you base an argument on anecdotal evidence. ... Anecdotal evidence is evidence based solely on the personal experience of one person or a small number of people. Such evidence cannot be used to make general statements that apply to everyone or every circumstance.
the fallacy fallacy:
you presumed that because a fallacy has been made in a claim/argument,then the claim/argument must be false.
we could make an example for this fallacy based on my example for the phonic fallacy
the phonic fallacy example:"Grec (Romanian) and greek (English) sound alike and therefore they mean the same thing"
''you just committed the phonic fallacy,therefore they don't mean the same thing''
they actually do mean the same thing
The fallacy of division:
i don't know how to explain this one and therefore i am just going to give an example:
P1:A has a,b and c in it
P2:P is in A
C1:Therefore P has a,b and c in it
The etymological fallacy:
The assumption that the present day meaning of a word/combination of words should be/is similar to the historical meaning.
the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy:
when you say something is true only because it hasn't been proven to be false or something is false because it hasn't been proven to be true.
The conjunction fallacy:
The conjunction fallacy is a formal fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one
the tu quoque fallacy:
Tu queque=you as well
You commit the tu queque fallacy when someone presents a mistake in your argument and you respond by saying that your opponent commits that mistake as well.
