LOGIC l "False Dilema" l John J. Parsons l Bible Teaching University l Scool of the Bible l NIGHT SCHOOL

Also Known as: Black & White Thinking. A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning": Either p is true or q is true. P is false. Therefore q is true. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example: Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12. It is not the case that 1+1=4. Therefore 1+1=12. In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example: Bill is dead or he is alive. Bill is not dead. Therefore Bill is alive. Examples: Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year." Senator Bill: "Why?" Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."   Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools." Jill: "Hey, I never said that!" Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"   "Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."   A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator. Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy. More Examples: Either you're for me or against me.   America: love it or leave it.   Either support George Bush or be considered a terrorist.   Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.   Proof: Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option. << Return

Hebrew for Christians Copyright © John J. Parsons All rights reserved.

LOGIC l "The Complex Question" l John J. Parsons l Bible Teaching University l Scool of the Bible l NIGHT SCHOOL

The Complex Question

This fallacy occurs when a single question that is really two (or more) questions is asked, and a single answer is illegitimately applied to both. Examples: Have you stopped beating your wife?   If you answer, "yes," then you are trapped into the implication that you have beaten your wife in the past; If you answer "no," then you are trapped into the implication that you are still beating your wife! This is really a disguised form of two separate questions: 1) Have you beaten your wife in the past? and, 2) if so, have you stopped now? Resolution: Expose the trap as really two questions posed to look as one.   You should support home education and the God-given right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs.   You are asked to agree to both propositions, when you could choose one, either but not both, or perhaps both.   Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?   Are you going to be a good little boy and eat your hamburger?   Have you stopped using illegal sales practices? Note: A "leading question" is one that begs the question of its truth. It is common in law courts. For example: Tell the court, Mr. Jones, whether on April 9th at approximately 7:25 pm you did see the defendant shoot the deceased? This is a leading question since the answer will be used to corroborate the idea that the defendant did indeed shoot the deceased, whereas a more straighforward (and honest) question would be, "Tell the court, Mr. Jones, what did you see on April 9th at 7:25 pm? - This example from Hurley (156). Proof: Identify the two propositions illegitimately conjoined and show that they are not necessarily logically connected. References: Cedarblom and Paulsen: 86, Copi and Cohen: 96 << Return

Hebrew for Christians Copyright © John J. Parsons All rights reserved.

LOGIC l "Begging the Question" l John J. Parsons l Bible Teaching University l NIGHT SCHOOL

Begging the Question

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii. Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or assume that the conclusion is true. That is, the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Note that in most cases some sort of phraseology is employed that conceals the fact that the premise is merely a restatement of the conclusion (and the conclusion is therefore used to support the premise of the argument!).   Example: Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitmate and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts. (Hurley, 153) Conclusion: Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping Premise: It is quite legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts. Note that the conclusion, that capital punishment is "justified" is the same thing as saying that it is "legitimate and appropriate" - and is therefore a restatement of the conclusion in a slightly different way. This "argument" therefore argues in a circle, since the premise supports the conclusion, and the conclusion supports the premise.   GM makes the best cars in the world today. We know this since they have the very best design engineers. The reason they have the best design engineers is because they can afford to pay them more than other car manufacturers. Obviously, they can afford to pay them more because they make the finest cars in the world. (adapted from Hurley, op cite.) In this example, the conclusion ("GM makes the best cars in the world") is stated first. The truth of this depends on each link of the chain - and ultimately on the first premise (stated last) which merely rephrases the conclusion. In this case it is easy to see why this is called "circular reasoning."   This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is assumed true. Claim C (the conclusion) is true. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true." More Examples: Bill: "God must exist." Jill: "How do you know." Bill: "Because the Bible says so." Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?" Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."   "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."   "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."   Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference." Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference." Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?" Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."   Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.   We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.   What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and God never lies.   Since firefighters must be strong men willing to face danger every day, it follows that no woman can be a firefighter." (Although arguments of this sort are formally valid because it is impossible for their conclusions to be false if their premises are true, they fail to provide logical support for their conclusions, which have already been accepted without proof at the outset.) Resolution: Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true. References: Barker: 159, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 144, Copi and Cohen: 102, Davis: 33; Hurley, 152. << Return

Hebrew for Christians Copyright © John J. Parsons All rights reserved.