Reasoning Errors

[Monna]

Some reasoning fallacies I can recognise but don't know the formal name for them.

One is this: A lion is an animal, therefore an animal is a lion.

The fallacy lies in thinking that where a set is made up of many individual subsets, because all members of a particular subset are by definition members of the set, all members of the set are also members of a specific subset.

(Set theory can probably also give us other logical errors.)

An extended version (I believe) occurs even in CF where someone may argue Jesus is God, therefore God is Jesus. The Father is God, therefore God is the Father, the Holy Spirit is God, therefore God is the Holy Spirit. and then going to the next step: therefore Jesus is the Father is the Holy Spirit. But I think there is another type of reasoning error going on here that I cannot quite describe, somehow linked to a confusion among multiple definitions or understandings of the word "God" - perhaps someone else can identify and name it.

 

[JD16]

Some reasoning fallacies I can recognise but don't know the formal name for them.

One is this: A lion is an animal, therefore an animal is a lion.

The fallacy lies in thinking that where a set is made up of many individual subsets, because all members of a particular subset are by definition members of the set, all members of the set are also members of a specific subset.

(Set theory can probably also give us other logical errors.)

An extended version (I believe) occurs even in CF where someone may argue Jesus is God, therefore God is Jesus. The Father is God, therefore God is the Father, the Holy Spirit is God, therefore God is the Holy Spirit. and then going to the next step: therefore Jesus is the Father is the Holy Spirit. But I think there is another type of reasoning error going on here that I cannot quite describe, somehow linked to a confusion among multiple definitions or understandings of the word "God" - perhaps someone else can identify and name it.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

 

[Monna]

I would also like someone on this thread to say something about reasoning errors that are related to underlying assumptions, often thought to be held by everyone, but may in fact not be.

All the follow arithmetic statements are correct:
a) 1 + 1 = 2
b) 1 + 1 = 10
c) 2 + 2 = 4
d) 2 + 2 = 100
e) 2 + 11 = 20

Most people would say only a) and c) are correct ... because they are used to using a numbering system with 10 digits (base 10)
b) is correct where you only have 2 digits - a 0 and a 1 ... (base 2 - the one used in computers)
d) and e) are correct if we assume a base 3 - 3 digits - 0 1 2. a) is also correct in base 3 numbering system

When we discuss scriptural issues, especially when we come out of different cultural and especially language backgrounds, we may not realise that we all have (possibly unconsciously held) hidden assumptions that colour our arguments and cause disagreements. These are associated with the meanings we give to individual words, and phrases - especially idioms.

For example, people who speak or read only English, and who have never been involved in translation work, may have great difficulty understanding that many languages today, and definitely the original scriptural languages, don't have punctuation, which can cause real headaches when it comes to understanding what is actually being said. A particular word may have several different meanings among which the translator must choose. I speak a smattering of a nordic language in which, for example, the word "mot" can mean either "towards" or "against" so to move "mot Gud" can mean either toward God or against God. "Effektiv" in this language can be translated as either "effective" or "efficient" which in English are actually very different in meaning. The word translated "let" by King James' bible scholars at the time meant "to hinder or forbid" - today it means the opposite - "to allow." We keep the old meaning in some legal phrases like "with let or hinder."

So reasoning errors may creep in during the communication process because what is meant by the word spoken is interpreted as something different by the hearer, because of the associations that word has for him/her. Even I as an individual participant might find I am using different meanings of the same word in a discussion, leading to confusion in my own reasoning as well as in the mind of my fellow discussant. (Sometimes it also leads to quite stunning insights too!)

Do these types of reasoning fallacies have special names, or are they put into an entirely different category of problem? They are particularly pertinent where we are trying to "reason together."

 

[zippy2006]

2. Faith
- Is actually confirmation bias - you want info/data to be in alignment with one's beliefs and so you interpret it as being in alignment with your beliefs (common example "If you pray for x it will occur")

Huh? What do you even think faith is, and what argument do you have to claim that it is "confirmation bias"?

Faith is a kind of trust, it is believing something on the authority of another. A recent thread highlights the ways in which all people, believers and unbelievers, exercise faith. Why do those of us who have no direct evidence of Australia believe in its existence? Because of faith. Because we take mapmakers, so-called Australians, history books, and reputed pictures and videos at their word. We trust that other people are telling us the truth when they directly or indirectly inform us of Australia's existence. Without faith the common man would not believe in Australia, Jupiter, Evolution, black holes, or ancient China. Without faith there is no progress in science, no interdisciplinary study, no elementary education. Without faith our collective knowledge plummets to almost nothing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The difference is, science is subjected to peer review, and fraud is easily exposed. Not so with faith

You'd never know it, many Atheists treat faith as complete bunk....they needn't even prove fraud.

But I digress, the point of this thread as the OP mention is to discuss why such fallacy is made and how to point it out to others and encourage them to not to commit such fallacy,...what I mention in my post is just for illustration purpose

Then you are saying I should not bring up the fact, you may be wrong about those fallacies of which you are trying to encourage some not to commit.

 

[Kenny'sID]

.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I can agree with this to some extent. But I don't know too many atheists that use the term science in the same way that a theist speaks of god.. Science is not an entity with ultimate authority which is seen as infallible and cannot be challenged.. Science is a tool (like grammar- bad example but the best I can think of right now) that can be corrected, challenged etc.. I think what you may be getting within an atheist attitude is that the idea of science takes precedence over other chosen tools of determining truth or what's best.. like scriptures, theophanies, prayer etc..

IF an atheist or anyone says that "This scientific study is true because it says it's true" - you are correct that would be circular reasoning and it would also be a reference to something that's not a scientific study. Scientific studies inherently are not produced through circular reasoning as they must prove theories within the bounds of logic, reasoning and evidence.

Were there any errors that you could see that happen among theists??

I probably didn't do a very good job of it, but my only point is, I think scientists have serious fallacy problems of their own...or the people who determine what the science tells us...science of course does nothing on it's own.

Take all the conclusions that can be drawn because scientists assume the earth is billions of years old, and some of these conclusions are stated as fact by many. evolution for instance is dependent on the age of the earth, while all one has to do is go online and see there are two sides to the carbon dating story. Some scientists assume their side is correct, so their findings that they call fact, are based on assumption. I see that happening a lot when we get down into the details where its said science can prove this that or the other thing.

Then comes...

Why are reasoning errors important to understand and accept? Because Sometimes people base their whole lives around faulty thinking and exclude themselves from the reality of the world around them and about themselves...

That is precisely what scientists do. And no, not all the time but enough to where there could be some serious faulty thinking. Way too many assumptions that no one seems to dwell on, that could change so many outcomes if wrong.

 

[Monna]

Way too many assumptions that no one seems to dwell on, that could change so many outcomes if wrong.

Thank you Kenny for providing an example of the idea that underlying assumptions are profoundly important in determining how a person reasons.

"Believing is seeing" is another way to put it.
Some people choose to believe everything in the Bible is literally true, and see a 6 day creation, with God puting imprints in rocks to decieve people into thinking there used to be strange animals that are different from those we see today. Their literal interpretation (especially if linked to one particular translation of the old manuscripts) require them to believe in unicorns, leviathon, literal "sons of God coming to earth to intermarry with human women."

Other people choose to believe that the natural processes we see going on around us today have been going on for millions of years, and see fossils of ancient creatures that died in the ocean, their skeletons fell to the bottom got compressed into what we call chalk or limestone. These people see a creation process that began a very long time ago and that continues today but which God very definitely set in motion and oversees. Many of them see the Bible as a book that contains hugely valuable lessons, some of which can only be taught through allegorical stories. The lessons of the stories are deep truth.

One point is clear (to me, based on my own assumptions): people choose their beliefs, consciously or unconsciously, and are responsible for where their "faith" takes them.

 

[Monna]

Way too many assumptions that no one seems to dwell on, that could change so many outcomes if wrong.

Thank you Kenny for providing an example of the idea that underlying assumptions are profoundly important in determining how a person reasons.

"Believing is seeing" is another way to put it.
Some people choose to believe everything in the Bible is literally true, and see a 6 day creation, with God puting imprints in rocks to decieve people into thinking there used to be strange animals that are different from those we see today. Their literal interpretation (especially if linked to one particular translation of the old manuscripts) require them to believe in unicorns, leviathon, literal "sons of God coming to earth to intermarry with human women."

Other people choose to believe that the natural processes we see going on around us today have been going on for millions of years, and see fossils of ancient creatures that died in the ocean, their skeletons fell to the bottom got compressed into what we call chalk or limestone. These people see a creation process that began a very long time ago and that continues today but which God very definitely set in motion and oversees. Many of them see the Bible as a book that contains hugely valuable lessons, some of which can only be taught through allegorical stories. The lessons of the stories are deep truth.

One point is clear (to me, based on my own assumptions): people choose their beliefs, consciously or unconsciously, and are responsible for where their "faith" takes them. Even if we have to cry "Lord I believe, help my unbelief!"

 

[Monna]

Way too many assumptions that no one seems to dwell on, that could change so many outcomes if wrong.

Thank you Kenny for providing an example of the idea that underlying assumptions are profoundly important in determining how a person reasons.

"Believing is seeing" is another way to put it.
Some people choose to believe everything in the Bible is literally true, and see a 6 day creation, with God puting imprints in rocks to decieve people into thinking there used to be strange animals that are different from those we see today. Their literal interpretation (especially if linked to one particular translation of the old manuscripts) require them to believe in unicorns, leviathon, literal "sons of God coming to earth to intermarry with human women."

Other people choose to believe that the natural processes we see going on around us today have been going on for millions of years, and see fossils of ancient creatures that died in the ocean, their skeletons fell to the bottom got compressed into what we call chalk or limestone. These people see a creation process that began a very long time ago and that continues today but which God very definitely set in motion and oversees. Many of them see the Bible as a book that contains hugely valuable lessons, some of which can only be taught through allegorical stories. The lessons of the stories are deep truth.

One point is clear (to me, based on my own assumptions): people choose their beliefs, consciously or unconsciously, and are responsible for where their "faith" takes them. Even if we have to cry "Lord I believe, help my unbelief!"

 

[Khalliqa]

It depends what you mean by faith.

Healthy faith is not irrational. If science proves the earth is round, a healthy faith doesn't say the earth is flat. If we know the earth is 5.4 billion years old, a healthy faith doesn't insist it is 6000 years old.

A healthy faith therefore pursues what is rational. Think about the Christian existentialists -- they were extremely rational philosophers, pushing reason to its very limits. BUT when they reached the wall where reason ended, they stepped through in faith. You can think of it in terms of probability. If something is 95% probable, you can pretty much consider it proven. But what if it is only 65% probable? Then it is not irrational to step out in faith and believe it is true.

I'm not sure how you're defining faith. You're describing a religious person engaging in science and accepting what's rational. While a religious person can utilize the scientific method while they do so they are not utilizing faith. They have to suspend the tool of faith to engage in scientific thinking. The two are mutually exclusive. Faith as I have been taught and what has been shared is the evidence of things unseen. A person assumes that what they believe is truth without any supporting evidence.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Thank you Kenny for providing an example of the idea that underlying assumptions are profoundly important in determining how a person reasons.

"Believing is seeing" is another way to put it.
Some people choose to believe everything in the Bible is literally true, and see a 6 day creation, with God puting imprints in rocks to decieve people into thinking there used to be strange animals that are different from those we see today. Their literal interpretation (especially if linked to one particular translation of the old manuscripts) require them to believe in unicorns, leviathon, literal "sons of God coming to earth to intermarry with human women."

Other people choose to believe that the natural processes we see going on around us today have been going on for millions of years, and see fossils of ancient creatures that died in the ocean, their skeletons fell to the bottom got compressed into what we call chalk or limestone. These people see a creation process that began a very long time ago and that continues today but which God very definitely set in motion and oversees. Many of them see the Bible as a book that contains hugely valuable lessons, some of which can only be taught through allegorical stories. The lessons of the stories are deep truth.

One point is clear (to me, based on my own assumptions): people choose their beliefs, consciously or unconsciously, and are responsible for where their "faith" takes them. Even if we have to cry "Lord I believe, help my unbelief!"

Can you choose to believe that Australia doesn't exist?

 

[miknik5]

Can you choose to believe that Australia doesn't exist?

The witnesses of Australia will tell you otherwise

Yes you can choose not to believe their testimony


Will it harm you for not believing their testimony?

No

Not if we're talking about Australia

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure how you're defining faith. You're describing a religious person engaging in science and accepting what's rational. While a religious person can utilize the scientific method while they do so they are not utilizing faith. They have to suspend the tool of faith to engage in scientific thinking. The two are mutually exclusive. Faith as I have been taught and what has been shared is the evidence of things unseen. A person assumes that what they believe is truth without any supporting evidence.

Don't make me come over there and deconstruct Peter Boghossian's 'manual' for you.............!

[My comment above is a bit of humor; don't take it literally, Khalliqa! But, I am "on" to your intervention here...]

 

[Kenny'sID]

Some people choose to believe everything in the Bible is literally true, and see a 6 day creation, with God puting imprints in rocks to decieve people into thinking there used to be strange animals that are different from those we see today

Honestly, I think I've seen that play out maybe once. I did find it telling you would use something like that as comparison to make your view there look so much better and less stupid than creationists. Do you see the little trick you pulled there? If not I'll explain further.

See, people do that when they are insecure with their side on this, they use things that have little or no meaning at all in order to substantiate their side of this, and I suppose any argument. But in the end, it simply isn't real.

It doesn't bother me at all, that you chose to do that so don't think I'm being defensive here, I actually appreciate the post, as it helps me make a point, one that is sorta wrapped up in things that I've already pointed out. That is the type things that scientist do with science, and draw solid conclusion from it.

Other people choose to believe that the natural processes we see going on around us today have been going on for millions of years, and see fossils of ancient creatures that died in the ocean, their skeletons fell to the bottom got compressed into what we call chalk or limestone.

Many of us, including myself see all that too, we see fossils, bones, limestone or whatever as just that, fossils, bone and limestone. and we see it as part of the natural process. simply stuff left over from a time past that some choose to read way too much into....as in, there is no proof these things are millions of years old. Sure we have scientists that choose to believe a debatable process that proves it but as I mentioned, there are two sides to that. Again, no proof, and as you say, they are responsible for what they are putting out there as fact when they know perfectly well the odds of it being so, just as we all are.

These people see a creation process that began a very long time ago and that continues today but which God very definitely set in motion and oversees.

Many of them see the Bible as a book that contains hugely valuable lessons, some of which can only be taught through allegorical stories. The lessons of the stories are deep truth.

I see the Bible as valuable as well. And once we pick and choose, especially without good reason, what should and should not be taken literally, and do so because we are so educated today, it has to be non literal because "we have proven it so" it presents real problems.

First, it is us "leaning unto our own understanding"..a simple and stern warning about just whats happening here. Then next, once we have decided in our own arrogance, that literal things are not to be taken literally because again, "we are smart and know better", once that's pulled off, the next thing we know, none of the bible is true, or to be taken literally, and next step....no literal God.

Think I'll stick with the bible, at least until scientists are confident enough with their findings that they can drop their reasoning errors and show us some viable proof things are otherwise.

 

[Khalliqa]

Don't make me come over there and deconstruct Peter Boghossian's 'manual' for you.............!

[My comment above is a bit of humor; don't take it literally, Khalliqa! But, I am "on" to your intervention here...]

Thx for introducing me to him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thx for introducing me to him.

...there's all kinds of PhD minds (or equivalent) I could introduce you to. I have a couple hundred sitting on my bookshelves...

But, I do disagree with Bogghosian's take on faith as being some kind of malformed epistemology, which is sort of what you're saying, but you've taken your cue about the nature of 'faith' from another source, apparently.

 

[Meowzltov]

I'm not sure how you're defining faith. You're describing a religious person engaging in science and accepting what's rational. While a religious person can utilize the scientific method while they do so they are not utilizing faith. They have to suspend the tool of faith to engage in scientific thinking. The two are mutually exclusive. Faith as I have been taught and what has been shared is the evidence of things unseen. A person assumes that what they believe is truth without any supporting evidence.

Faith is the belief in something unproven, although the faith is not irrational. For example, I believe the Big Bang happened -- that's proven. I believe the Big Bang happened because of God's direction -- that's faith. I believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor -- that's proven. I believe that evolution is the "how" of God creating -- that's faith.

To believe something is true without ANY supporting evidence at all is not faith, it's just foolishness. In faith, you believe that the odds are in your favor, but it can't be proven. For example, I look at the transformation of the apostles from cringing cowards to dynamic evangelists willing to die as strong evidence they knew Jesus rose from the dead -- but it's not PROOF. It takes faith. If I believed that purple elephants with pink spots existed on a planet with two suns somewhere in the universe (a belief without ANY evidence) well that would just be stupid.

 

[Moral Orel]

2. Faith
- Is actually confirmation bias - you want info/data to be in alignment with one's beliefs and so you interpret it as being in alignment with your beliefs (common example "If you pray for x it will occur")

Though I am no theist, I have to side with the theist responses on this one. Faith is belief in something, and confirmation bias is sometimes how people support that faith. They aren't the same thing. It would be like saying a theory is evidence.

 

[Khalliqa]

...there's all kinds of PhD minds (or equivalent) I could introduce you to. I have a couple hundred sitting on my bookshelves...

But, I do disagree with Bogghosian's take on faith as being some kind of malformed epistemology, which is sort of what you're saying, but you've taken your cue about the nature of 'faith' from another source, apparently.

I haven't read the book yet. I've just ordered it. I am open to more suggestions as well.

The definition of faith in the Bible seems to necessitate confirmation bias. Similarly, what I've heard, read and observed from Christians seems consistently to reflect this definition.

 

[Khalliqa]

Faith is the belief in something unproven, although the faith is not irrational. For example, I believe the Big Bang happened -- that's proven. I believe the Big Bang happened because of God's direction -- that's faith. I believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor -- that's proven. I believe that evolution is the "how" of God creating -- that's faith.

To believe something is true without ANY supporting evidence at all is not faith, it's just foolishness. In faith, you believe that the odds are in your favor, but it can't be proven. For example, I look at the transformation of the apostles from cringing cowards to dynamic evangelists willing to die as strong evidence they knew Jesus rose from the dead -- but it's not PROOF. It takes faith. If I believed that purple elephants with pink spots existed on a planet with two suns somewhere in the universe (a belief without ANY evidence) well that would just be stupid.

The predetermined idea without verifiable facts or observations that there must be an entity which is the author of "X" is an example of confirmation bias

I love my boyfriend.. I've studied and have come up with a workable theory that he doesn't like runny food mixed with solid food. That's my theory for which I have data in iphone video, pics, his own statements agreeing to this in round about ways, loose calculation by memory - of which he agrees- the number of times he separates the two over a period of weeks.etc.. among other observations to back my theory.. Doesn't make it a fact just a strong theory.. this could be colloquially mentioned as a "belief" to bolster my argument when I present it to him.. but my belief stems from a (granted in this case, very loose) scientific exercise to reach the conclusion..

If I then say I have faith that Thor made him do that.. that would be confirmation bias..