2.1 The Structure of Thinking

My philosophy meetings are done for the semester, but in honor of Thursday night, here is another post on my philosophical journey.
___________________________
1. There is a structure to the way we reason, a structure whose basic contours have been discussed at least since Aristotle in the 300s BC.

From one point of view, there are three basic components of reasoning. 

• There are assumptions. 
• There are relationships between assumptions. 
• And there are conclusions.

2. The relationships between assumptions are logic. There are no exceptions in this universe to the way logic works. Yes, it can take different forms. For example, logic can be expressed in stories. But the analysis that Aristotle and others abstracted always works as an analysis of good reasoning.

I want to emphasize this point because the late twentieth century had its share of detractors from logic as it historically has been used. I do not wish to argue that logic must be expressed in an Aristotelian way. However, I know of no approach that is as precise and reliable in its analysis of human reasoning. Other forms are far more prone to misdirection. They are, as it were, less mathematical.

Meanwhile, propositional logic -- as we might call it -- is always correct when it is formulated according to the rules. This makes it one of the most certain aspects of creation, closely related to math.

3. Aristotle laid out the fundamental pattern of logic in terms of what is called the syllogism. A syllogism has the form of 1) premise, 2) premise, 3) conclusion. The logic of a syllogism is valid if it works -- if the relationships between premises and conclusions work.

For example, take the following syllogism:

• All unmarried individuals are single.
• Jill is unmarried.
• Therefore, Jill is single.

Here we have 1) a general statement, 2) a subset of that general statement, 3) a connecting of the general statement with one example of it. The logic of this argument is valid. The conclusion must follow.

This is an example of deductive reasoning. The conclusion, as it were, is contained in the premises. You might think of deductive reasoning as an upside down V. It starts with an assumption and expands to the conclusions that follow from it.

The other kind of reasoning is inductive reasoning. It's like a regular V. With it, you start with evidence and then draw a conclusion from there. We will look at inductive reasoning in a later section.

4. It's important to note that, just because the logic of a syllogism is valid doesn't mean it's true. It is true only if both of the premises are true.

For example, it is true by definition that "All unmarried individuals are single." But what if Jill is actually married? Then the conclusion is false even though the logic of the argument works. 

5. As mentioned, the assumptions in logic are called premises. If the premises of an argument are true and the logic of an argument is "valid," then the conclusion of the argument is certainly true, without exception, and without any valid counter-argument. 

Why then do we diagree? The primary weak point of our arguments comes from faulty or debatable premises. That is, debatable assumptions. 

So there are two places where an argument may fail. It may fail because its logic isn't valid. And it may fail because one or more of its premises are false.

6. Where do our assumptions come from? First, sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they come because we haven't interpreted the evidence correctly, as we will see. Perhaps we don't have all the evidence -- we rarely do. Perhaps we make a "hasty generalization" because we don't have all the evidence or we "connect the dots" in the wrong way.

Some of our assumptions are "unexamined," as we have seen. You may have heard the colorful saying that, "When we ASSUME, we make an A** out of U and ME." Jumping to conclusions when we don't have the facts or seeing what we want to see are major causes of bad thinking and faulty conclusions.

And here let me agree with some of the voices that have pushed back on logic in recent years. Mastery of logical reasoning does not guarantee moral clarity or correct conclusions. You can be an outstanding logician and hold troubling moral views or ridiculous perspectives. 

For example, Gottlob Frege (1848–1925), as we will see, was a brilliant logician. He is one of the most important figures in the history of logic. Yet in his later writings he expressed horrible views about Jews. Logical rigor doesn't mean your conclusions are correct -- especially if your premises are off. 

7. You no doubt have experienced or heard of the child that continues to ask "But why" until the parent finally responds in frustration, "Because I said so." This is a parable of all logic. 

Let's say we have a premise in an argument. We might support that premise with other premises. We might have an assumption that is a conclusion from another argument. And so on, and so on.

Eventually, however, all thinking comes down to what we might call axioms or assumptions that are not provable or disprovable. They are necessary for us to make any arguments. In geometry, you might remember that "two points make a line." This isn't something to prove. It's an assumption. 

In what is called Euclidean geometry, an assumption is that two parallel lines never meet. There are other geometries that don't make this assumption, but in everyday geometry, this is an assumption that is never proved. It's just assumed.

Later on our journey, we'll talk about some of our core assumptions. They might include premises like "The world outside me is real and distinct from me." How about "When an event would not have happened without the event before it, we say that the one event caused the other event"? What about "Time is the succession of one moment after another" and "Space is the potential for my movement beyond the extension of my body"?

The philosopher Alvin Plantinga (b.1932) has spoken of warranted and properly basic belief. He would argue that belief in God is "properly basic," meaning that it is foundational enough to our reality that God's existence doesn't necessarily have to be argued for. It is a reasonable assumption. Interestingly, he has also offered many arguments for the existence of God. [1]  

8. Another word for an assumption in logic is a presupposition. In particular, a presupposition tends to be an assumption that more foundational or significant. Some schools of thought relate presuppositions to what they might call a worldview. Sometimes, worldviews are seen as large systems of assumptions.

I would argue that there are more and less helpful ways of thinking about worldviews, as we will see eventually. If a worldview is seen as a collection of related perspectives, it can be a useful construct. However, some treat worldviews as inevitable systems. Or, worse, they might see an element of a worldview and conclude a person then has a host of other positions they may not actually have.

We will explore this "bad logic" later on.

9. I've mentioned that logic has had its detractors in recent decades. I had a student once -- now a professor himself -- who went to Princeton Seminary, which has a fair amount of what might be called "post-liberal" thinking. Post-liberal thinking tends to be anti-evidentiary thinking.

We had an interesting conversation after his first year. Clearly, the significance of Reason was being called into question. In Christian circles, we often find faith and reason pitted against each other.

I remember making a distinction between what we might call "macro-reason" -- that is, large systems of assumptions and conclusions -- and what I called "micro-reason." In that conversation, micro-reason referred to the simple logic that we have been exploring in this post.

You cannot avoid this logic if you have any thoughts at all. You cannot argue against Reason without using logic. You cannot interpret the Bible without logic. Let that sink in.

The concept of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral has reason as one of the four sides. But in reality, it is unavoidable at the center. We use reason to interpret Scripture, experience, and tradition.

We cannot escape it. As soon as we form a sentence, we have used reason. Reason thus is the unescapable foundation of all truth, at least in this universe.

[1] Captured in the book by Jerry Walls and Trent Dougherty, Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God (Oxford University, 2018). 

___________________________

Introduction
1.1 What is philosophy?
1.2 Is philosophy Christian?
1.3 Unexamined assumptions
1.4 Socrates and the Unexamined Life

Logic
2.1 The Structure of Thinking (this post)
2.2 When Thinking Goes Wrong
2.3 Three Tests for Truth
2.4 Knowing the Bible
2.5 Plato and Aristotle
2.6 The Story of Logic

Wesleyan philosophy 2 -- What is good thinking?

Deductive Reasoning
There is a style of logic whose official form seems to go back to Aristotle from 384-322 BC. You might call it “syllogistic logic” because it has a format that involves “syllogisms.” With syllogisms, you have premises that build to logical conclusions. If the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion must also be true.

I have never been able to imagine a scenario where this approach to truth claims would not be valid. I recognize that such logic might possibly take on a different form in a different culture. For most of us, especially in daily life, our reasoning is more intuitive and implicit. We do not usually tell our spouse, “premise 1, premise 2, conclusion.” (Some of us might from time to time, but our spouses may consider us rather weird and annoying.)

While this particular form of logic might be cultural in some sense, I cannot see where it does not reflect underlying absolute truths of this universe. Another culture might express such truths in other forms, but I consider that a difference in form rather than substance.

The moniker, “Western logic” seems a bit peculiar. Ancient Greece was a quite different world than mine. There was no Europe at that time. Ancient Greece was different from Renaissance Italy and Enlightenment Prussia too. “Western” mainly says, “not Eastern, not Africa, not Middle East, not South American," and so forth. I suppose it means a modern European perspective on Aristotelian logic that has carried over from Europe to academic philosophy in the United States.

While I believe more metaphorical and intuitive forms of logic are valid and get at the same truths, I find Aristotelian logic and its heritage to be more precise and thus more helpful at truth-processing than more impressionistic, everyday arguments or more narrative versions. The syllogism is a bit like math, and it is hard to argue that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. Accordingly, if all truth is God’s truth, then syllogistic logic is part of natural revelation and thus absolute truth in its substance. I can’t see any way around it. I find it extremely unhelpful to align it with certain people groups, except perhaps in relation to its form.

I call this sort of reason, “micro-reason.” It is not worldview reasoning or even paradigmatic reasoning. Such larger “macro-reason” is very open to question and examination. "Macro-reason" is the use of micro-reason to argue for truths. It is micro-reason in action. When our contemporaries question Wesley’s quadrilateral, they must surely be questioning macro-reason with larger assumptions and the application of micro-reason. When they do so, they are using micro-reason or fundamental logic.

Micro-reason is used in all thinking, as soon as we connect two atoms of thought together. We cannot interpret the Bible without using our micro-reasoning. [1] We cannot process a word from the Lord through the Holy Spirit without micro-reasoning. From Tertullian to Kierkegaard to Barth, these “I believe it because it is absurd” folk used micro-reason. Even Jacques Derrida, as opaque as his deconstructionist writings are, used micro-reason, although he tried very hard to obfuscate it. Micro-reason is thus foundational, underlying truth of any propositional kind, including truths we might draw from the Bible.

This sort of micro-reason or fundamental logic to the universe ultimately boils down to fundamental presuppositions. At some point, you hit basic definitions and assumptions that cannot be proved. Geometric proofs ultimately are built on the basis of fundamental axioms that cannot be proven. They are simply assumed.

One of the fundamental tests for truth is the coherence test. Does a proposed truth contradict itself? The law of non-contradiction states that a claim cannot both be true and untrue if it is stated literally. So if you find a fundamental contradiction in a collection of truth claims, at least one of your truth claims must be false in some way.

It does not seem to me that any of these understandings of logic contradict faith in general, let alone Wesleyan faith. Logic seems to be fundamental to the way God has made this universe. It is part of absolute truth. It is part of natural revelation. We cannot avoid it, not even when we are trying to listen to Scripture and interpret it.

Inductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning starts with certain assumptions and then draws conclusions, like an upside-down V. By contrast, inductive reasoning is like a normal V. You draw in evidence and make inferences. Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning tends to be open-ended. Unless you have all the possible data, there is always the chance that the next piece of data you collect will throw the coherence test out of whack and sink your hypothesis.

The scientific method is inductive. You collect evidence. You form a hypothesis. You collect more data and test the hypothesis. You refine the hypothesis if necessary. Eventually, you have enough proven results to present a theory, and so forth. This process never strictly ends as long as there is more data to collect. Paradigms form. Paradigms shift. And so on.

A recent display at the Smithsonian declared the scientific method to be white in nature. We face a similar question to that we mentioned in relation to Aristotelian logic. In this case, we point back to Francis Bacon, who was English and lived from 1561-1626.

I consider any such designation extremely unfortunate and undesirable because of how incredibly successful the method has been. It seems to me that it describes the approach that people in all times and all places have used in one form or another for discovery. Where can we find water? Such and such suggests we might dig here. Let’s dig. No water. Let’s try over here. Water. While there may be cultural dimensions to the way the scientific method is expressed and formulated, let us strongly refrain from associating it with any ethnicity or people group. That almost begs for racist inferences of a most heinous nature.

Thus while the results of any particular scientific quest are not absolute truth, the scientific method as a model for seeking truth would seem to be part of the logic of the universe. It is sound reasoning. The results, however, are more often than not eternally tentative.

If the coherence test is a test for truth that relates to deductive reasoning, the “correspondence test” is a test that relates to inductive reasoning. Does the claim that I am making correlate with the data I have? A third test for truth is the pragmatic test. If I operate on the assumption that this hypothesis is true, does it “work” in the world? Does it get me from a to b? You may have heard the expression, “for heuristic purposes.” The idea is that I assume something to see if the hypothesis “works” without assuming it is actually true.

Logical Fallacies
Many different logical fallacies lurk and abound in our reasoning. Some are formal and relate more to deductive reasoning. Others are informal and relate more to inductive reasoning. They are fallacies because they violate the fundamental laws of logic above. Note that one’s conclusion might be true and yet poorly argued.

Below are some logical fallacies. We should point out that they are fallacies because they do not necessitate a certain conclusion. Practically speaking, sometimes this sort of reasoning turns out to point to something that proves to be true in the “real world.” By calling them logical fallacies, we mean that you cannot be certain the conclusion is true. The conclusion does not follow for certain.

• Hasty generalization – you form a conclusion without enough evidence yet
• Ad hominem fallacy – you attack the person rather than the argument they are making
• Circumstantial fallacy – you assume a conclusion without direct observation but from surrounding, “circumstantial” evidence.
• “After this, because of this” – A form of the circumstantial fallacy. Just because something followed something else chronologically doesn’t prove the first thing caused the second.
• Genetic fallacy – The origins of a conclusion or the reasons why someone believes a conclusion neither prove nor disprove the conclusion.
• Fallacy of diversion – basically, changing the subject
• Fallacy of equivocation -- slipping a different meaning to your terms in mid-argument
• False alternative – You give an "a or b" choice when there are actually other options as well.
• Slippery slope fallacy – Once you start moving in a particular direction, it is not guaranteed that you will continue moving further in that direction.
• Circular reasoning/begging the question – assuming your conclusion in your argument
• Fallacies of composition and division – You assume everything in a group is a certain way because something in that group is that way. Also the opposite: because of a general trend of a group you assume everything in that group manifests that trend.
• Appeal to ignorance – Absence of evidence does not disprove a claim
• Appeal to the majority – something isn’t true just because most people believe it
• Appeal to improper authority – citing someone who is not an authority on an issue does not support your case
• Appeal to emotion – something isn’t true because it “feels so right”
• Appeal to force – you can’t make something true by forcing people to affirm it

These basic fallacies would seem to be sound warnings. They do not indicate for certain that your conclusion is false, but they do indicate that your logic for reaching those conclusions is invalid. They are the stuff of political and religious rhetoric. We would be wise to know them well so that we can spot when our minds are potentially being manipulated.

There is nothing unWesleyan about the idea of these fallacies. This would seem to be a good thing because they would seem to be part of the absolute truth of the universe as God has created it. Their form may have cultural elements, but the underlying truth to which they point would seem to be unassailable. They are part of natural revelation.

[1] Unavoidably, micro-reason is thus logically prior to Scripture because we cannot interpret Scripture or any revelation without using it. When we speak of the priority of Scripture to reason in the quadrilateral, we are speaking of it in relation to what I am calling "macro-reason."

Gen Eds Series P4: Critical Thinking

This is my fourth philosophy post in a series called, "General Education in a Nutshell." Philosophy is the first of ten subjects I plan to overview in this series. These are the subjects a person normally takes in college (or high school) to be a generally educated person (most of them also make up what is sometimes called the "liberal arts").

The first three philosophy posts were:

• Philosophy Overview
• Philosophy of Religion
• Epistemology

1. Critical thinking is perhaps the most important skill a person can get from the liberal arts and a general education. Critical thinking skills are the ability to analyze claims, identify their assumptions, and make judgments about their likely truthfulness.

There are three basic components to human thinking. First there are assumptions or presuppositions, which include our "paradigms" or patterns we follow when interpreting things. [1] These are inescapable and fundamental to all our reasoning. Then there is our thought process itself, which is governed by logic or reasoning. Finally, there is the content of our thinking, the inputs we take from the world on the basis of our experiences and senses.

Somewhat related to these are three classical tests for truth. The correspondence test basically asks, "Does this claim correspond to reality?" It is thus related to the inputs part of thinking. The impossibility of objectivity puts a big damper on this test because all of our understanding of the world and its data is processed by our minds, interpreted.

So the correspondence test is best limited to fairly basic claims like, "There is an elephant in this room." Really? Do you mean a literal elephant or are you using a figure of speech? If you meant the statement literally, I should be able to quickly confirm or deny your claim using the correspondence test.

2. The second test is the coherence test. It asks whether the logic of my claim or argument is coherent. Are there any logical fallacies in your line of thought. Of course an argument can be completely coherent and yet false because your assumptions or premises are false. Here we have what is called the syllogism, first explored in detail by the Greek thinker Aristotle.

• All philosophy teachers are geniuses.
• Ken is a philosophy teacher.
• Ken is a genius.

The logic here is valid--it works and is coherent. But the first premise is not true because not all philosophy teachers are geniuses. And I did not teach philosophy last year or the coming year. I'm actually a New Testament scholar. So the logic of this syllogism works, but the premises are false. You should not conclude thereby that Ken is a genius.

3. The third test has especially risen to prominence in this postmodern time, namely, the pragmatic test. It asks whether a truth claim works. What do you mean by "works"? Does it achieve its goal? There is a sense in which we might think of all of our paradigms and theories about the world as heuristic devices, "myths" or highly developed poems of a sort to help us process the world.

Are there electrons, protons, and neutrons? This theory has done us very, very well over the last century. We can't really see them. We can really only see the effects of these proposed particles. So the question of whether it is true that they exist is really one of the pragmatic test. The theory works and has been developed to work very well to predict what will happen under certain circumstances.

4. The next post will look at the philosophy of science and so will continue our discussion of assumptions and a pragmatic approach to reality. For the rest of this post, we want to mention the most significant logical fallacies or errors in thinking, which are always very relevant in an election season.

a. Jumping to Conclusions (hasty generalization)
We do it all the time. We don't have all the information and yet we form a conclusion. Candidates, election ads, and cable news figures often give us just enough data for us to jump to a conclusion. The critical thinker will question every one.

b. The Straw Man argument
Often in an argument, someone creates a slightly (or greatly) skewed version of an opponent's position. So Obama has never tried (or thought it possible in a million years) to get rid of the second amendment. No one is trying to set up death panels. These are skewed versions of real political positions that a critical thinker will see right through.

c. Attacking the Person (ad hominem fallacy)
It is a standard technique in politics to attack the person rather than the positions. Trump does this all the time. Mitt Romney is a loser. John McCain is a loser. Hilary Clinton was an enabler. Unless these claims relate in some substantial way to the claims these people are making, then they are irrelevant. The critical thinker will ignore name calling when considering an argument.

d. Loaded Question
One of the things I mourn about the news situation today is the loaded question. That's when you assume a position in your questioning. "Don't you think it is hypocritical of you to say that you support economic growth when your decisions work entirely against it?" An objective question will try to assume as little as possible in the asking. "In what ways would you say that your decisions in office have helped or hindered economic growth?" The critical thinker will be disgusted by the way many news interviews are conducted these days.

e. Begging the Question (circular reasoning)
Similar to a loaded question, this is when you assume your conclusion in your argument. "The Bible is inspired because 1 Timothy 3:16 says so." You are assuming the Bible is inspired to argue that the Bible is inspired, which is bad reasoning.

f. Black and White Thinking (false alternative)
This is where a person says, "Either you believe this or you believe that," when in fact there are more alternatives. Either you believe in unregulated capitalism or you are a communist. There are a lot of options in between these two. But because most people have trouble with nuance, politicians are constantly manipulating bad thinkers with this one. The critical thinker will see right through it. There are usually other options, "third ways," middle paths, etc.

g. Wishful Thinking (appeal to emotion)
Most people think mostly with their emotions, not their reason. We find arguments to support what we want to be true. "It can't be wrong because it feels so right." Tell that to the ground next time you fall off a building. Intuitions can actually be based on unarticulated evidence. But your feelings are completely irrelevant to the truth. But I don't want to have a broken arm because I got in a car accident. Tough cookies. The truth doesn't care how you feel.

h. Changing the Issue (fallacy of diversion)
There are all sorts of versions of this one. Today we want to argue that women should be paid the same as men if they do the same job. "Oh yeah, well do you know how many babies were aborted today? Now that's a more important issue. "The critical thinker will not be thrown off by this changing of the issue.

The slippery slope argument is another diversion. "If we have any gun control at all, pretty soon they will be taking away all our guns." Completely illogical and the critical thinker will not be fooled.

The genetic fallacy changes the issue to where it came from. "You realize the person who came up with this idea was a criminal." Really? That's interesting. But is the idea right or wrong, because where the idea came from is a diversion.

The you also (tu quoque) argument tries to turn the focus off of me and on to you: "Well, you're a fine one to say that." The critical thinker will notice that the speaker is trying to deflect attention off of him or herself.

i. Prejudice and Smearing (composition and division)
Another tool in the illogical politician's toolbox is to smear an opponent by connecting them with a bad group (division) or maligning a whole group because a bad individual is part of it. "He must be a terrorist because he's Muslim." Or "I knew a Christian who was a hypocrite; therefore, all Christians are hypocrites."

And many more...

The world is sorely lacking critical thinkers. Every election cycle in America we realize just how illogically most people think. Perhaps the most important function of an education, especially in a democracy, is to try to inculcate critical thinking skills. It is largely a losing battle. But progress can be made.

Next Week: Philosophy 5: Philosophy of Science

[1] On a larger scale, our presuppositions include the frameworks or paradigms through which we process the world, which some like to call "worldviews" or our "narratives," but there are fallacies lurking in a perspective that thinks we make most our decisions on the basis of large ideological frameworks. See the next post on the philosophy of science.

Some Basic Thinking Fallacies

I'm teaching an intro philosophy class this semester for undergrads on Thursday nights. The first night we covered some logical fallacies. I thought after last week's class that there are some really basic ones I would especially like an educated person to know:

1. Jumping to Conclusions
Wait till you have the facts well in hand before you draw conclusions.

2. Ad Hominem Fallacy
Attacking the person making an argument doesn't disprove the argument.

3. Straw Man Argument
When you don't attack their real argument but a flimsy version of their real argument

4. Circular Reasoning/Begging the Question
When you assume what you are arguing for as part of your argument

5. False Alternative
Sometimes there are more options than a simple either-or.

6. Wishful Thinking
Something isn't true just because you want it to be true.

I'm having them do some tweeting for the full participation points. If you want to follow or interact with #180cphilosophy on Twitter roughly from 6:30-8:30ish, you're welcome.

Why Argue?

Some people like to argue. You can almost count on them taking the other side of anything you say. Of course, it can be easy to manipulate those who are predictable in this way, like you might use reverse psychology on a stubborn child.

One of the more frustrating things of my life, since I love ideas, is that it often isn't possible to win a debate. I wish God would swoop in sometimes and pronounce a winner. You know, the end of Job type thing where God comes in and says, "Where were you when I plucked Leviathan out with a fishhook?"

You can be completely convinced of something and the majority think you're crazy or evil... and of course you may be. Those who are wrongly convinced or paranoid or schizophrenic may be completely convinced that they are seeing the rest of the world as it is. At the same time, the average intelligence of the world is, well, average. So it is likely in many circumstances that as far as the truth is concerned, "narrow is the way and few there be who find it."

It is immensely frustrating that God doesn't show up to say, "And the winner is..." We are left to how convinced we remain after an argument and, perhaps more importantly, when you count up all the people standing by, who do they think is right. We've all voted for the person who lost the election. So we all probably agree that the majority isn't always right.

Even at the Society of Biblical Literature, where people of the highest biblical knowledge are debating, I often hear papers that I think are complete and utter nonsense. What world are they from? Having a large church means nothing as far as the truth is concerned. Crowds flock to rock concerts and all sorts of things, including Hitler rallies.

So why argue? There's no point in arguing unless it leads to some positive consequence. "You can't win an argument," so if the person you are arguing with is the only person involved and you're not going to have any effect on him or her, then just walk away.

Sometimes you can have a good effect on the people listening to the debate. That's a reason to push back. Rarely does putting people in their place work and, perhaps more often, it backfires.

Basically, don't argue because you think you're right. As logical as you might think you are, that's illogical. Argue if you think you might actually change something for the better. If not, just walk away.

Rhetorical Guide for the Political Season

Be looking for the following good and bad uses of speech and rhetoric.  Find Waldo in every speech and advertisement.  P.S. All the candidates are "he's" this time, thus the "he's" below.
______________
Straight talk: Words being used in their normal ways.  Candidate means what he says.

Figurative speech: Words being used in a less than literal way.  Comparisons are being made to say such and such is like something else.

Hyperbole/Overstatement: Making the point by over-making the point, exaggerating to make the point

Understatement: Making the point by stating things much more modestly than they actually are

Humor: Making a joke, often one that makes fun of an opponent, either in good fun or as an attack

Irony: When something said has a second meaning that in some way intersects curiously with the primary meaning, often unintended. One example is when you say the exact opposite of what you mean

Sarcasm: a jab or cutting remark, often through irony or understatement

Disagreement: Sometimes candidates just flat disagree.  They just have an honest difference of conclusion or interpretation.

Misplaced blame: Blaming the wrong party for something

Misrepresentation: When a candidate knows that what he's saying is misleading or skews the actual facts, often intentionally but can also happen unintentionally

Glaring omission: Some fact or information omitted that would significantly change the basic impression

Hypocrisy: When a candidate criticizes another candidate for something he actually believes or did himself

Flat-out Lie: When a candidate looks you straight in the eye and tells you something he knows isn't true.

Some Fallacies to look for:

Fallacy of Diversion: Where you change the subject or the issue

Circular Reasoning: Where your conclusion is part of your argument

Appeal to emotion: Where you get the audience's emotions stirred up and pretend that's an argument

Appeal to improper authority: When you treat someone as an expert who isn't

Attack the person: Where you don't actually attack a position but the person with the position

After this, because of this: When you assume that something that came before something else is the cause

False Alternative: When you present something as an either/or that isn't, when there's a third alternative

Informal Fallacies of Logic

I'm trying to finish up a chapter on logic in the philosophy textbook today and thought I would write some about informal logical fallacies here.

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)
It should be obvious that forcing someone to hold a certain position does not make that position true. The law usually will reject a confession from a suspect that has been coerced out of them. Force is the stuff of power and politics, but it is not the stuff of logic. You cannot change what is logically true by torture or pressure.

Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)
Debbie Boone famously sang a song called, "You Light Up My Life." One of the lines says, "It can't be wrong, 'cause it feels so right." Whatever merit this thought might have in other contexts, it has no merit at all in logic. Whether or not something is true or not logically has nothing to do with feelings or emotions.

Closely related to this is the fallacy of subjectivism.<2--in> Something is not true or false logically because of what I want to be true or false. For example, the question, "Does God exist objectively, apart from human thinking?" has nothing to do with whether I like the idea of God or whether it works for me. It is not a matter of my motivation to believe or disbelieve.

The question of whether God exists objectively depends on, well, whether or not God exists objectively. To be sure, you can find conceptions of God out there that do both believe God exists and that this belief is a matter of human subjectivity. But this is not the kind of existence we were asking about--whether a Being exists apart from human thinking and the actions to which that thinking leads. If this sort of God exists, then God exists regardless of my feelings or desires.

Appeal to the Majority
If the fallacy of subjectivism is the idea that something is not logically true or false because of your individual desires, then it is similarly true that something is not logically true or false simply because a majority of individuals want it to be true or false. In general, truth or falsity in logic is not a matter of vote. Whether or not an idea is true or false is a matter of, well, whether it is true or false.<3>

Is it raining right now outside in the normal sense of what it means to rain? The answer to this question is not a matter of a vote. Either it is literally raining or it is not.<4>

Appeal to Improper Authority
In this and the next fallacy, we shift to slightly different logical ground, namely, when bringing other people into arguments makes sense and when it does not. In some circumstances, it might make sense to put weight on a person's claims because of who they are. Take a victim of a crime who is mentally stable, knew his or her attacker, has no apparent ulterior motives, and observed that person attacking him or her. This person certainly seems a credible authority on who made the attack. This credibility does not prove guilt absolutely, but it may prove beyond reasonable doubt.

In many cases, however, it is clear that we rely on the opinion's of many individuals who are not really an appropriate authority on an issue, not least ourselves. "Everyone's entitled to their opinion." But that does not mean that everyone's opinion is equally valuable or likely to be true.<5> Informed opinion is, at least logically, more valuable than an individual's whims and fancies.

This fallacy becomes a real issue in matters of religion and politics. For example, is a person who can quote Bible verses an authority on what God thinks on a particular issue? Frankly, is knowing a Bible verse even the same as being an authority on what that verse meant when it was written down--as well as what God wants us to think of it today? Does being able to quote Bible verses make one an authority on world events and matters of contemporary science? It seems doubtful.

Argument against the Person (ad hominem)
An often effective technique in debate is to attack the person you are debating rather than the actual issue at hand. Politics is rife with this sort of slight of hand. So and so is in a picture with this other so and so. So and so cusses a lot or had an affair with so and so. So and so is a liberal or a conservative or a communist or a Fascist or unpatriotic.

But logically, you cannot dismiss the truth of an idea by attacking the person who holds the idea. Whether or not an idea is true or false depends on, well, whether or not the idea is true or false. It does not depend on the person who has the idea. In the Bible, Satan knows that Jesus is the Son of God (e.g., Matt. 4:6), and demons themselves believe in the one God (James 2:19).

Two related falacies are the genetic fallacy and the circumstantial fallacy. The genetic fallacy is to say that something must be false because of the reasons they came to the idea. Freud famously suggested that people believe in God because they want a Father figure to take care of them. Marx famously called religion the "opiate of the masses." But even if these things proved to be true in many cases--that people believe in God because they want divine help or to make life bearable--that would not logically disprove the existence of God. Whether or not God exists depends on, well, whether or not God exists.

The circumstantial fallacy argues against a person's position by pointing out the circumstances in which the person is making the claim. "Isn't it true that the District Attorney has cut you a deal if you will testify?" It may be true, but that does not logically necessitate that the witness is lying.

For this reason, circumstantial evidence is of varying value in a trial. From a practical standpoint, it can actually be very compelling. Let's say I find my son with cookie crumbs and chocolate smears around his mouth, a trail of crumbs leading back to a cookie drawer that is opened, with a box of cookies opened and standing upright in the drawer. I did not actually see my son take or eat the cookie. I am not an eyewitness to the "crime." Nevertheless, it is reasonable to infer that he in fact has just eaten a cookie from the drawer.

At the same time, this circumstantial evidence does not logically prove that he did. He could have been framed by one of his clever sisters, without him even realizing it. For that matter, space aliens or a mischievious angel might have set the whole thing up. This scenario gives us a good illustration of the difference between what is logically necessary and what is possible or even probable.

Appeal to Ignorance
Sometimes someone will argue that because you have not or cannot prove one thing to be true, that the opposite must be true. "Prove it. You can't prove I did it." Of course the fact that I cannot prove that you did something has nothing to do with whether you did it or not. Either you did it or you did not, and my ability to tell does not affect anything. Christians of course believe that God knows.

Perhaps one of the instances of this fallacy of greatest interest to Christians is when it is applied to God. You cannot prove that God exists and, therefore, God must not exist. This argument hardly makes any logical sense at all. It is true that an individual may believe they have no reason to believe in God. But this fact does not in any way serve as a proof that God does not exist.

Hasty Generalization
Next to fallacies involving subjectivism, perhaps the most frequently committed logical fallacy is that of "hasty generalization." You draw an inference when you simply do not have enough information to do so. In fact, this fallacy often accompanies the committing of other fallacies, such as the fallacies of composition and division that follows.<6>

Fallacies of Composition and Division
The fallacy of composition is when you assume that something is true of a whole group of things simply because it is true of some of things within it. We see this fallacy at work in what sociologists call in group/out group dynamics. People tend to pick positive individuals or traits from the groups to which they belong and then ascribe these particular characteristics to the whole group. Similarly, we tend to pick negative traits or examples from other groups we do not like and paint the whole group with the same brush.

By contrast, the fallacy of division is when you take something that is true of the whole and then apply it to all of its parts. The fact that a team loses a ball game does not mean that every individual on the team played poorly or worse than those on the other team. The fact that an administration as a whole makes bad decisions does not mean that everyone in that administration agreed with those decisions or thought them the best course of action.

After This, Because of This (post hoc propter hoc)
Another frequent expression of hasty generalization is the assumption that because something happened after something else, the first thing must have caused the second thing. For example, let's say I touch your ear lobe and then you immediately fall over dead. It might be tempting to think that the touch had something to do with you dying, but it is not at all a logical certainty.

We especially have to be careful about this fallacy when we are looking at historical events and trying to ascribe praise or blame for things. A related fallacy is confuse something that correlates with a trend for the cause of that trend (non causa pro causa). Let's say that a large plant closes in a small town and in the next year, both the crime rate rises and a large number of people move out of town. It is of course possible that the rise in crime is causing people to leave town. But it is perhaps even more likely that the rise in crime more correlates with the people leaving town, both primarily because of the factory closing.

Fallacy of Diversion
The fallacy of diversion involves a changing of the real subject at hand. Some of the fallacies we have already mentioned can serve such a diversion, such as attacking the person instead of his or her position. One common form of diversion confuses the consequences of something with the value of that thing. For example, it may very well be that prohibiting certain drugs will result in a sub-culture of illegal drug making and trafficking. This fact does not necessarily mean, however, that we should not prohibit those drugs. The abuse of something does not clearly invalidate that thing.

Another form of diversion is a straw man argument. In this fallacy, you create a portrait of your opponent's position that looks a little like it but is actually not quite the same position. Most of us would have a hard time beating up your average weight lifter or wrestler. But we could probably vanquish quite easily a version of them stuffed with straw. In the same way, it is easy to dismiss someone else's argument when he or she is not in the room... and you are misrepresenting their position.

Fallacy of Equivocation
The fallacy of diversion involves a change of subject. The fallacy of equivocation changes the sense of the words you are using in mid-argument. Take the famous quip, "Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" The person who poses this question usually wishes to argue that it does not make sense to say that God is all powerful.

But this person has mixed up two distinct concepts associated with the word can. One has to do with power or ability and the other has to do with possibility. Christians do not normally suggest that it is possible for God to do everything, for everything includes things that contradict themselves. Christians believe rather than God has all power.

The answer to the question, "Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" is thus "no" precisely because God is all powerful. God can (has the power to) lift any rock. He can (it is possible for Him to) lift any rock. He cannot not be able to life any rock. The question is worded in a way that plays into the hands of the fallacy of equivocation.

False Alternative
Another fallacy is to present an either/or option, when in fact other alternatives exist. Either you love me or you hate me. Either you favor the war or you do not. Life is seldom this simple. If you do not believe every word of the Bible is true then you do not believe any of the Bible is true. If you believe in evolution then you do not believe God created the world. We can believe that every word of the Bible is true and not believe in evolution and yet recognize that the last two sentences are examples of the fallacy of false alternative.

For example, there are Christians who believe that God created the world through evolution. They may be wrong, but they represent another possibility for which the either/or sentence above did not allow. And if for some strange reason someone believed that Lot's wife actually turned into mustard rather than salt (Genesis 19:26), that would not imply that they did not believe in the resurrection or that we should love our neighbor.

One notable example of the fallacy of false alternative is a slippery slope argument. A "slippery slope" is the idea that if you start down a certain path, you will not be able to stop. If you let kids go out on dates unsupervised, they will all end up having sex. Now in real life, slippery slopes can actually have some substance to them. Most parents who do not want their teenage children having sex do not leave them alone in their bedrooms with a girlfriend or boyfriend and then leave for the night. But logically, it is not an absolute certainty that one thing will lead to another. Other alternatives exist.

Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)
A final fallacy we might mention is begging the question, which is when you assume your conclusion in your argument. We can believe the Bible is inspired and recognize that we cannot 2 Timothy 3:16 to prove it: "all Scripture is God-breathed. You are assuming the Bible is inspired in your attempt to prove that the Bible is inspired. This would be like saying "Ken never lies because he told me he never lies." What if I turn out to be a flagrant liar?

A related fallacy is the complex question, such as in some cases when a lawyer leads a witness. "When did your anger issues stop?" You are assuming that the person had anger issues. The question thus asks a follow up question when you haven't yet established the answer to the first one, namely, "Did you have an anger problem?"