Dismantling Bad Arguments

With a minimal groundwork laid, our small logic class turned to common ways that arguments fail to make the case the arguer intends. Fallacies are what logicians call these common mistakes.

1. If the argument is truly a formal argument, there are two easy ways to ruin it:
(a) Prove that one of the premises is false (=ruining the form of a formal argument).
(b) Find a counterexample that violates the argument.

*I'm of the opinion that most arguments people encounter outside the academy are the informal/inductive variety. Also, I found working with informal fallacies to be quite fun in the course I took. Therefore, I decided to give formal fallacies only a passing nod. If some folks show desire to learn more, we might break out the square of opposition!

For the following fallacies, I gave people the name, my brief explanation, and an example of the fallacy committed in an argument. The fun is in putting a finger on what the exact problem is. I'm not giving my specific examples because it took a long time to find precise & concise examples that would interest folks.
2. Some informal arguments have irrelevant ideas that ruin them.

a. appeal to force - "My conclusion should be accepted or else!" threats, blackmail, etc.

b. appeal to pity - "My conclusion should be accepted because of these unfortunate circumstances." immoral begging, shut-your-brain-off-and-feel-sorry requests

c. appeal to the people - "My conclusion needs to be accepted if you are going to fit into the group." peer pressure, jump-on-the-bandwagon arguments

d. argument against the person - "That conclusion is wrong because you said it." every failure to recognize that the truth is true no matter who presents it and with what motives

e. accident - "Here's a broad principle/rule that justifies my conclusion for this specific situation." misusing broad principles/rules for cases they weren't meant to cover, failure to recognize a special case

f. straw man - "That other opinion is so crazy in the first place! Of course it's wrong, and here's why..." misrepresenting an opposing view so that you can triumph over that misrepresentation (instead of a real position)

g. missing the point - "If you agree that premise #1 and premise #2 are true, then why don't you agree with my conclusion?" letting true evidence lead me just off target from the fitting conclusion - to something related

h. red herring - "Focus on my engaging side issue instead of focusing on the actual evidence I have for my conclusion." different audiences fall for different 'red herrings' - whatever the hot topics are

Part 3 (weak induction) coming soon!
Part 1 (Clear Thinking Matters)

Clear Thinking Matters

Last night I led Equip 2.1: Basic Logic Principles for our church. I couldn't be more pleased with the results and feedback. Here is how we began:

A. You must understand the arguer before you can argue with him.

1. First, look for the parts of the argument:

a. conclusion – the arguer is trying to persuade you of something: his conclusion

b. premise(s) – the arguer uses or implies evidence that should lead you to his conclusion

c. For something to be considered an argument there need to be premises and a conclusion that follows from them. Stating your opinion, giving advice, conditional statements, and many other statements sound like arguments but are missing parts.

d. Some arguments have necessary conclusions (deductive/formal arguments), but most of the arguments we see have probable conclusions (inductive/informal arguments).

2. Second, test the individual parts of the argument.

a. Do you need to learn more about the subject matter to understand the argument?

b. Does the arguer use unfamiliar words?

c. Are there implied parts to the argument of which you should be aware?

d. Are there any terms or statements in the argument that are vague or ambiguous? [Arguments must be clear in order to be effective.]

B. Everyone needs logic for clear thinking – especially Christians.
1. Proverbs 1:20-33 The cost is high for stupidity.

2. Following Jesus requires understanding his words & their application to many areas: John 8:31-32.

3. Many temptations can be fought by arguing against your sinful impulses with truth: 1Corinthians 10:11-15.

4. Our society is more impressed with rhetoric (speech that moves you) than logic (use of evidence to draw good conclusions).

Part 2 (Dismantling Bad Arguments)

Political Liberalism's Long-term Effects

For those of you who don't read Justin Taylor's blog, he linked an insightful article from W. Bradford Wilcox of U. of Virginia, writing for the online publication of The Witherspoon Institute

Here's the lead sentence from Wilcox' closing paragraph:

This is why, even though Obama’s audacious agenda might provide short-term relief to the economic and social challenges that now beset us, over the long term the Obama revolution is likely to erode first the religious and then the civic and moral fabric of the nation.

The article has the links to the study report from a professor and grad student at U. of Washington, as well as other cited articles and studies.

Knowing God's Will for Me

I just emailed a friend about figuring out what God wants us to do in life. I think there are two (complementary) ways to approach knowing God's will. I'll share:

existential (aka "subjective") - It comes down to *confidence* based on some thought, some dream, some godly desire or passion that drives what you do and where you go. I think it overstatement to say such "feelings" are always or even usually the Spirit of Christ; but he's with us and he has a personal influence on us. Maybe his influence comes to our awareness (1) by using our personality & already conscious inclinations, and other times (2) by introducing new or foreign ideas/desires.

inductive (aka "logical") - This is theological work combined with honest, personal reflection. Scripture tells us that God expects _(fill in the blank)_ of me; am I becoming such a person? Am I doing those things "heartily, as unto the Lord" himself? Going through a list of God's revealed expectations for a man in my situation with my responsibilities can establish parameters - "fences, goads, and rewards along God's path for me" - that can show me I probably am OR certainly am not walking down God's path for my life.

If I am inside the revealed parameters ("fences, goads & rewards") God has revealed in Scripture for someone in my situation, then I can assure my restless mind that my Shepherd will not let me wander so far off course as to miss his specific plans for my life. He's too kind to conscience such a thing.

Unfulfilled dreams, desires, passions, directions from others, etc. might be Jesus' voice leading us into a new path, but they should not become barbs and thorns that stick in our hearts to make us suspect that we've missed God's plan for us. Maybe even I made some promise in my past about what I would do or become - a promise that would cause me to hop the fence, kick against the goads, or ignore God's rewards. Jephthah (Judges 11) was not honorable for keeping his foolish vow to the Lord.

Those unfulfilled motivators might be to prepare me to see and pursue future opportunities the Shepherd has planned. If those unfulfilled motivators have me wondering about the past only ("What if I had..."), I might need to let them die, so that I can live and prepare for what's ahead.

Remember, Jesus is kind. He loves us better than and prior to any of our loves. Who can be against us?

What do you (our illustrious 3 readers) think?

Logic and the Economic Crisis

The current downturn (don't read depression yet) in our economy provides a great example of an unfortunate "principle" for human beings: If the right people (or enough people) say the same thing long enough, we will believe it.

Thomas Sowell summarizes how this has transpired:

From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us.

What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market's "greed." That makes great moral melodrama, but it turns the facts upside down.

It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.

Sowell goes on to explain (the whole piece is 2 pages) that government intervention was a primary cause, and government intervention (such as the stimulus) probably will not help the recovery.

I am intending to offer a crash course on basic logic (informal fallacies are the fun part) for my church folk. We'll look at some examples from misguided economic & political ideals.

HT: Matt Perman