Reasoning Errors

[Khalliqa]

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... Sometimes people cause unnecessary and often negative division between themselves and others and/or try to create it with between external parties. So they don't grow and they prevent others from the opportunity of growth.. Having good intentions is a start but if filtered through reasoning errors can cause undue harm to self and others..

1. Circular Reasoning
- Attempts at arguments by assuming what you're trying to prove is true (common example: bible is true because the bible says it's true)

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")

3. Misleading Definitions
- Related to confirmation bias. You utilize the misuse of a definition as if it is the correct definition because it fits your belief and do not change when the correct definition is given and no other evidence or sound reason is given to change it... "Atheist means faith in the non existence of god.. " le sigh..

4. Pragmatic Fallacy - Vague often non scientific anecdotal knowledge of something "working" and assuming it will "work" for everyone else (e.g. anytime someone says I met god.. felt god.. god talked to me etc.. therefore god will talk to you etc.. and if he doesn't you're satan.. evil.. wrong.. etc.. - also see confirmation bias)

5. Placebo Effect (see confirmation bias and pragmatic fallacy) - experience something because you believe it to work "I felt god wanted me to.." "I sense god in others"

5. Appeal to Authority - An authority (often subjectively chosen as such) says something so therefore a thing is true.. e.g. Dawkins says X therefore X is what atheists believe

These are errors that everyone is susceptible to, and probably have made at some point. However, on this forum, I've noticed that they occur a lot without self reflection by those who are of faith.. There is one person who goes on threads and responds to posts by repeating the confirmation of their faith.. and while that really looks a bit kooky.. I'm reminded that in real life when confronted with opposing views.. there are many who do the same thing.. rather than consider their position may be flawed..

I'm open to correction if this is not the case but it seems to be a stumbling block in a lot of efforts at dialogue. Also open to any reasoning errors I have missed..

 

[miknik5]

1. Circular Reasoning
- Attempts at arguments by assuming what you're trying to prove is true (common example: bible is true because the bible says it's true)

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")

3. Misleading Definitions
- Related to confirmation bias. You utilize the misuse of a definition as if it is the correct definition because it fits your belief and do not change when the correct definition is given and no other evidence or sound reason is given to change it... "Atheist means faith in the non existence of god.. " le sigh..

4. Pragmatic Fallacy - Vague often non scientific anecdotal knowledge of something "working" and assuming it will "work" for everyone else (e.g. anytime someone says I met god.. felt god.. god talked to me etc.. therefore god will talk to you etc.. and if he doesn't you're satan.. evil.. wrong.. etc.. - also see confirmation bias)

5. Placebo Effect (see confirmation bias and pragmatic fallacy) - experience something because you believe it to work "I felt god wanted me to.." "I sense god in others"

5. Appeal to Authority - An authority (often subjectively chosen as such) says something so therefore a thing is true.. e.g. Dawkins says X therefore X is what atheists believe

These are errors that everyone is susceptible to, and probably have made at some point. However, on this forum, I've noticed that they occur a lot without self reflection by those who are of faith.. There is one person who goes on threads and responds to posts by repeating the confirmation of their faith.. and while that really looks a bit kooky.. I'm reminded that in real life when confronted with opposing views.. there are many who do the same thing.. rather than consider their position may be flawed..

I'm open to correction if this is not the case but it seems to be a stumbling block in a lot of efforts at dialogue. Also open to any reasoning errors I have missed..

Oh

These reasoning tools are not the stumbling block

 

[JD16]

1. Argument from ignorance - is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa).

Eg. Science can't disprove God, so therefore God is Real

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

2. Special pleading - is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

Eg. Everything needs a creator, except God

Special pleading - Wikipedia

3. Argumentum ad baculum - is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion

Eg. If you don't want to go to hell, you have to believe in Jesus
I don't want to go to hell
Therefore I believe in Jesus

Argumentum ad baculum - Wikipedia

4 Argument from incredulity/divine fallacy - is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

Eg. Evolution is false, how can a monkey give birth to a human?

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki
Divine fallacy - Wikipedia

5. Moving the goalposts - to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage

Eg. Show me where does it say in the bible that x happen, ( after being presented the verse ) But but but but Context!!!

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia

6. Philosophical burden of proof -
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.

Eg. I don't have to prove that there is a God,...you have to prove that there is no God

Philosophical burden of proof - Wikipedia

 

[JD16]

Oh

These reasoning tools are not the stumbling block

There are not reasoning tools,...these are Logical fallacy/formal fallacy/informal fallacy

Formal fallacy - Wikipedia
Informal fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[miknik5]

There are not reasoning tools,...these are Logical fallacy/formal fallacy/informal fallacy

Formal fallacy - Wikipedia
Informal fallacy - Wikipedia

There are ears that hear and ears that don't hear

There is nothing that we can do about it

 

[JD16]

There are ears that hear and ears that don't hear

There is nothing that we can do about it

You have to make sense/be logical if you expect 'ears to hear' If you don't make sense, who can you blame for not hearing?

 

[miknik5]

You have to make sense/be logical if you expect 'ears to hear' If you don't make sense, who can you blame for not hearing?

We make sense

You just can't hear

It's hidden from some

 

[JD16]

We make sense

You just can't hear

It's hidden from some

Sure sure Ooook

 

[miknik5]

In some, the prophesy of ISAIAH is fulfilled

Now we know that prophecy

Do you?

 

[JD16]

In some, the prophesy of ISAIAH is fulfilled

Now we know that prophecy

Do you?

No, I don't,....but not in this thread please, the purpose of this thread is to discuss logical fallacy, let's not derail it.

 

[miknik5]

No, I don't,....but not in this thread please, the purpose of this thread is to discuss logical fallacy, let's not derail it.

You are on a Christian forum
You aren't a Christian
You don't view the WORD of GOD
You see those who use the WORD of GOD as an incorrect reasoning tool because you consider it circular reasoning using the WORD of GOD to support what is understood by some but not understood by others because they can't see or hear

What sort of input will be posted here in this thread in a Christian APOLOGETICS forum?

GOD's WORD

 

[miknik5]

Now if you answered no I don't know that prophecy, could you tell me
Do you want to know what I would say, which wouldn't be off topic from this thread's purpose

 

[miknik5]

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... Sometimes people cause unnecessary and often negative division between themselves and others and/or try to create it with between external parties. So they don't grow and they prevent others from the opportunity of growth.. Having good intentions is a start but if filtered through reasoning errors can cause undue harm to self and others..

1. Circular Reasoning
- Attempts at arguments by assuming what you're trying to prove is true (common example: bible is true because the bible says it's true)

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")

3. Misleading Definitions
- Related to confirmation bias. You utilize the misuse of a definition as if it is the correct definition because it fits your belief and do not change when the correct definition is given and no other evidence or sound reason is given to change it... "Atheist means faith in the non existence of god.. " le sigh..

4. Pragmatic Fallacy - Vague often non scientific anecdotal knowledge of something "working" and assuming it will "work" for everyone else (e.g. anytime someone says I met god.. felt god.. god talked to me etc.. therefore god will talk to you etc.. and if he doesn't you're satan.. evil.. wrong.. etc.. - also see confirmation bias)

5. Placebo Effect (see confirmation bias and pragmatic fallacy) - experience something because you believe it to work "I felt god wanted me to.." "I sense god in others"

5. Appeal to Authority - An authority (often subjectively chosen as such) says something so therefore a thing is true.. e.g. Dawkins says X therefore X is what atheists believe

These are errors that everyone is susceptible to, and probably have made at some point. However, on this forum, I've noticed that they occur a lot without self reflection by those who are of faith.. There is one person who goes on threads and responds to posts by repeating the confirmation of their faith.. and while that really looks a bit kooky.. I'm reminded that in real life when confronted with opposing views.. there are many who do the same thing.. rather than consider their position may be flawed..

I'm open to correction if this is not the case but it seems to be a stumbling block in a lot of efforts at dialogue. Also open to any reasoning errors I have missed..

There is one person who hors on threads repeating the confirmation of their faith

Can you elaborate on what they are repeating

Could it be faith in CHRIST Alone?

 

[JD16]

[Staff edit]

You aren't a Christian

O'rely? How did you figure that out? And your point? You do realise that Atheist and Agnostics as well as people of other faith are welcome here rite?

You don't view the WORD of GOD

True, again, what's your point?

You see those who use the WORD of GOD as an incorrect reasoning tool because you consider it circular reasoning using the WORD of GOD to support what is understood by some but not understood by others because they can't see or hear

Nope, if its illogical, no matter how much you scream that its THE TRUTH or GOD's WORD,...its still illogical. The bible is true because the bible says its true is circular reasoning no matter how much you protest and scream about it.

What sort of input will be posted here in this thread in a Christian APOLOGETICS forum?

Any input that adheres to the OP, which is about logical fallacy.....not proselytizing.

[Staff edit]

 

[Khalliqa]

[Staff edit].

The point of this post was inspired by the earnest quest of a Christian who was evaluating their ability to reason and trying to rectify it with their faith.. The responses were sometimes comical but oft times reflective and encouraging. It made me think there was a real way for dialogue among us..

I'd ask others if they could provide more examples and also reasons for why these are errors in thinking in the first place. I really don't think most people understand WHY these are considered errors and fallacies or have explored why they have contributed to and are necessary for societal advancement.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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... Sometimes people cause unnecessary and often negative division between themselves and others and/or try to create it with between external parties. So they don't grow and they prevent others from the opportunity of growth.. Having good intentions is a start but if filtered through reasoning errors can cause undue harm to self and others..

1. Circular Reasoning
- Attempts at arguments by assuming what you're trying to prove is true (common example: bible is true because the bible says it's true)

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")

....faith is 'actually' confirmation bias? Am I reading this correctly? Which non-partisan dictionary of philosophy did you cull this from? (oh, you didn't?...you say got it from an atheist source?)

3. Misleading Definitions
- Related to confirmation bias. You utilize the misuse of a definition as if it is the correct definition because it fits your belief and do not change when the correct definition is given and no other evidence or sound reason is given to change it... "Atheist means faith in the non existence of god.. " le sigh..

Yes, atheists have been known to do this, too! See above.

4. Pragmatic Fallacy - Vague often non scientific anecdotal knowledge of something "working" and assuming it will "work" for everyone else (e.g. anytime someone says I met god.. felt god.. god talked to me etc.. therefore god will talk to you etc.. and if he doesn't you're satan.. evil.. wrong.. etc.. - also see confirmation bias)

5. Placebo Effect (see confirmation bias and pragmatic fallacy) - experience something because you believe it to work "I felt god wanted me to.." "I sense god in others"

5. Appeal to Authority - An authority (often subjectively chosen as such) says something so therefore a thing is true.. e.g. Dawkins says X therefore X is what atheists believe

These are errors that everyone is susceptible to, and probably have made at some point. However, on this forum, I've noticed that they occur a lot without self reflection by those who are of faith.. There is one person who goes on threads and responds to posts by repeating the confirmation of their faith.. and while that really looks a bit kooky.. I'm reminded that in real life when confronted with opposing views.. there are many who do the same thing.. rather than consider their position may be flawed..

I'm open to correction if this is not the case but it seems to be a stumbling block in a lot of efforts at dialogue. Also open to any reasoning errors I have missed..

Sure. Lots of people do these things, whether they are Christian, Atheist, or 'whatever.' However, one way to combat this is for us to value 'education' and be willing to do the work of learning.

 

[Khalliqa]

....faith is 'actually' confirmation bias? Am I reading this correctly? Which non-partisan dictionary of philosophy did you cull this from? (oh, you didn't?...you say got it from an atheist source?)

By the definition... but I'm open to hearing your thoughts on the definition if you have another way of looking at it...

Yes, atheists have been known to do this, too! See above.

Atheists are guilty of all of these errors in varying degrees.. Logical fallacies are not theist specific unless we're talking about "faith" issues but an atheist can be guilty if they make a confirmation bias claim let me see.. like "See this argument on this Christian website? This is the reason I won't sign up to be a member of the Christian Forum because the dialogue will not be fruitful.." That would be a reasoning error. It would be confirmation bias made by an atheist and it is a probable one where I could see an atheist saying so but their reasoning would be faulty.

But faith being a confirmation bias is not an error. You would have to show me where I'm in error before I'd agree with you.

Sure. Lot's of people do these things, whether they are Christian, Atheist, or 'whatever.' However, one way to combat this is for us to value 'education' and be willing to do the work of learning.

The reason I mention reasoning errors here is because I have observed more of this tendency in faith based posters. The responses are littered with logical fallacies. In addition, observing the post where a theist was seeking advice about logical fallacies and some of the advice seemed to be full of reasoning errors seemed unfortunate.. Observing what seems to be a tendency in theists does not exclude atheists from committing reasoning errors or being susceptible to it.. I just do not personally witness it as much and thus it is the catalyst for supplying information about it but certainly not a diagnosis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By the definition... but I'm open to hearing your thoughts on the definition if you have another way of looking at it...

The first thing I'd like to know is from where you've taken your own definition of 'faith'? Did you take it from one authoritative source, or did you synthesize your own definition through research by bringing together various sources on the issue? Or, did you just ponder it all on your lonesome and come up with the notion that 'faith' is a form of 'confirmation bias'?

Atheists are guilty of all of these errors in varying degrees.. Logical fallacies are not theist specific unless we're talking about "faith" issues but an atheist can be guilty if they make a confirmation bias claim let me see.. like "See this argument on this Christian website? This is the reason I won't sign up to be a member of the Christian Forum because the dialogue will not be fruitful.." That would be a reasoning error. It would be confirmation bias made by an atheist and it is a probable one where I could see an atheist saying so but their reasoning would be faulty.

But faith being a confirmation bias is not an error. You would have to show me where I'm in error before I'd agree with you.

Ok. Let's begin with some considerations of sociology of education, and ask ourselves: 'who' gets to define the term, 'faith'? And are there, by chance, multiple denotations and usages of the term? And once we think we've answered that, then we can get into the epistemological and hermeneutical angles about 'faith' as it pertains to Christianity. We might then ask: what is faith, and does it have to be seen a merely 'confirmation bias'?

The reason I mention reasoning errors here is because I have observed more of this tendency in faith based posters. The responses are littered with logical fallacies. In addition, observing the post where a theist was seeking advice about logical fallacies and some of the advice seemed to be full of reasoning errors seemed unfortunate.. Observing what seems to be a tendency in theists does not exclude atheists from committing reasoning errors or being susceptible to it.. I just do not personally witness it as much and thus it is the catalyst for supplying information about it but certainly not a diagnosis.

Well, of course logical fallacies litter the responses of various posters here. Fallacies in thinking are common to anyone, and for any subject, not just religion.

Perhaps theists of various sorts do make logical errors a little more because they might be tempted to think that their holy book was meant to be comprehensive in nature, giving them all the answers to life and reality, that the information it gives is 'simple,' and therefore other, more expansive considerations about truth and reality may be ignored. Such a cognitive state would essentially begin as a hermeneutical error which in turn contributes to further logical errors.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Khalliqa laid out some fallacies in the OP and asked if she was missing any, and then JD16 added some good material, too.

But I think everyone is missing the absolute biggest fallacy of them all [staff edit].

*The non sequitur*

[Staff edit].

 

[Khalliqa]

1. Argument from ignorance - is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa).

Eg. Science can't disprove God, so therefore God is Real

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

2. Special pleading - is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

Eg. Everything needs a creator, except God

Special pleading - Wikipedia

3. Argumentum ad baculum - is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion

Eg. If you don't want to go to hell, you have to believe in Jesus
I don't want to go to hell
Therefore I believe in Jesus

Argumentum ad baculum - Wikipedia

4 Argument from incredulity/divine fallacy - is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

Eg. Evolution is false, how can a monkey give birth to a human?

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki
Divine fallacy - Wikipedia

5. Moving the goalposts - to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage

Eg. Show me where does it say in the bible that x happen, ( after being presented the verse ) But but but but Context!!!

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia

6. Philosophical burden of proof -
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.

Eg. I don't have to prove that there is a God,...you have to prove that there is no God

Philosophical burden of proof - Wikipedia

Hi JD. I'm sorry for some reason I did not see this before. I'm multi-tasking. Thank you. That is useful.

I'm also sort of gathering these to help me with dialogue with friends/family members to aid them in understanding that a critique of logic does not = you're a bad person or stupid or something to an atheist. Well not to this atheist anyway lol. It simply means what it is.. and only what it is.. an error in the way you're processing information.

So, these are helpful..

I'd still implore more input on the WHYS of why fallacies (I want to stay away from the term because I feel it's so overused that people knee jerkingly feel attacked ...) are determined to be errors.