Logical fallacies

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[OneOfMany]

BTDT, I remembered these authors,Dr,Henry Cloud and Dr. JohnTownsend, and a book I read from them years ago called Boundries. [...]

I appreciate the recommendation. I can understand why you marked that page, it's a great quote you shared. I may move the book higher on my to-read list, but finishing Philip Yancey's "Vanishing Grace" comes first.

We can all spend a lifetime learning how to balance letting go, accountability, when to participate and engage and when to walk away, know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.

-B

You are so right. I have bookshelves full of inspirational books who express their interpretations of the Bible. The vast majority pretty much read the same. I have been reading more history books, which give first hand account of attitudes or theory. Those leaders and individuals who sought to build up, rather than tear down brought positive results. You have those who through selfish goals tear down and cause misery for many. I believe God uses some who have selfish and even evil goals to build up, such as the pharaoh and the Israelites. I see hard hearts here often, manipulating truths and facts for what is obviously a personal agenda. God will use it for good, but it doesn’t make it right. Sure, if someone is purposely partaking in destructive activities, call them out. But I don’t get that from this forum. It comes across as more of a personal attempt to tear down, regardless of who or what is torn down. Look at history, whole civilizations have been torn down from the acts of a few bitter or angry people.we have become a me society, with division growing more all the time.

I do not want to tear down. I am calling out those who purposely partake in destructive activities (leadership within Evergreen) i have asked them to change what they do.

I do not believe this forum can tear down a civilization or a church. This forum does not have that kind of power.

[Badger]

I see hard hearts here often, manipulating truths and facts for what is obviously a personal agenda. God will use it for good, but it doesn’t make it right.

I would challenge you on this statement Greentruth.  Only God can evaluate any one person's heart or agenda.  I do not have the ability to judge another's heart and decide whether it is hard or bitter.  I have no problem with someone evaluating another's actions, especially if their actions or actions seem contrary to what they supposedly preach.

[Greentruth]

I’m sorry, I didn’t call anyone out specifically, and didn’t have either of you in mind when commenting. When it comes to hard hearts everyone can struggle to deal with it. There are many tangents surrounding judging others, and many obtuse to us. Teaching from Gods word can help define the obtuse, and at times counseling is wise, of which I have sought out in dealing with different situations. 

[Linda]

I would challenge you on this statement Greentruth.  Only God can evaluate any one person's heart or agenda.  I do not have the ability to judge another's heart and decide whether it is hard or bitter.  I have no problem with someone evaluating another's actions, especially if their actions or actions seem contrary to what they supposedly preach.

Thank you for pointing this out, Badger. Judging hearts and calling people bitter has been a staple on this forum.

And since GT said it on the Fallacy thread, I would like to point out that it is a form of ad hominem.

Ad hominem happens a lot on this forum.

As a reminder, ad hominem "is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Again, GT, these are debate terms. For clarity, a fallacy in this context refers to faulty reasoning. An argument does not mean people are having angry words, an argument, in this context, is "a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view".

I have noted that many of those defending GCx on this forum rarely challenge the issue at hand (i.e. give a theological defense to a message given by an elder, give a logical defense to why they think ECC's investigator is truly an independent 3rd party investigator, accept a challenge to fix a misleading statement on a donation page or explain why is is not necessary). Rather, they attack the person.

"Linda, Do you realize that you have spend 1,092 DAYS on this forum? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?" Ad hominem.

"You all are bitter." Ad hominem.

"You are all spiritual masturbators." Ad hominem.

"You have no fruit." Ad hominem.

"You are being unfair and unjust." Ad hominem.

"You say you are Christians, but you are false Christians." Ad hominem.

"You don't even claim to be a Christian." Ad hominem.

"This isn't a Christian forum." Ad hominem.

"At least he is doing mission work. How many people have you led to the Lord or witnessed to this month?" Ad hominem.

These are all emotional attempts to silence and discredit the person speaking and thereby discredit what they are saying rather than having a rational debate about the topic at hand.

[Greentruth]

Linda, again you add to, and manipulate my words. I’m sorry but the only term I used was hard heart, and to deny that each of us can struggle with having a hard heart is possibly telling of having a hard heart. Manipulating another’s words also is telling of holding onto an agenda from one perspective. I never brought up the MD and Suzanne issue, and was only discussing with BTDT what we have learned through a few different books we have read.  I have struggled with having a hard heart in a few situations I have dealt with thirty years ago AT the time. Through Christian counseling, reading and surrounding myself with positive people I overcame this, and only through excepting Gods love and forgiveness I needed. From your manipulation and holding onto only your stance and agenda I could assume you have a hard heart, I don’t know, it’s not my place to know. All I’m saying is that it comes across that way. It’s your life, your choice and your consequence to live with,not mine. But I will speak up when I see what is unjust and over the top attacks on people I know to be loving God seeking and God serving people. I hope you can understand my points, as my comment had nothing to do with MD. You gave your opinion, which I don’t feel I have any right to deny your voicing, but some of the over the top attacks I have seen are much different. Even zealforgod who I know well, said as much.

[OneOfMany]

Linda, again you add to, and manipulate my words. I’m sorry but the only term I used was hard heart, and to deny that each of us can struggle with having a hard heart is possibly telling of having a hard heart. Manipulating another’s words also is telling of holding onto an agenda from one perspective. I never brought up the MD and Suzanne issue, and was only discussing with BTDT what we have learned through a few different books we have read.  I have struggled with having a hard heart in a few situations I have dealt with thirty years ago AT the time. Through Christian counseling, reading and surrounding myself with positive people I overcame this, and only through excepting Gods love and forgiveness I needed. From your manipulation and holding onto only your stance and agenda I could assume you have a hard heart, I don’t know, it’s not my place to know. All I’m saying is that it comes across that way. It’s your life, your choice and your consequence to live with,not mine. But I will speak up when I see what is unjust and over the top attacks on people I know to be loving God seeking and God serving people. I hope you can understand my points, as my comment had nothing to do with MD. You gave your opinion, which I don’t feel I have any right to deny your voicing, but some of the over the top attacks I have seen are much different. Even zealforgod who I know well, said as much.

Greentruth. I agree with what Linda told you about the constant use of Ad Hominem attacks. You use them quite often. If you do not mean to treat people with accusations and judgement then the problem is learning to communicate effectively. Sometimes I wonder if you were so wounded that you are transferring what you went through to this little forum's discussions.

[araignee19]

From your manipulation and holding onto only your stance and agenda I could assume you have a hard heart, I don’t know, it’s not my place to know. All I’m saying is that it comes across that way. It’s your life, your choice and your consequence to live with,not mine. But I will speak up when I see what is unjust and over the top attacks on people I know to be loving God seeking and God serving people. I hope you can understand my points, as my comment had nothing to do with MD. You gave your opinion, which I don’t feel I have any right to deny your voicing, but some of the over the top attacks I have seen are much different. Even zealforgod who I know well, said as much.

How about instead of saying Linda appears hard hearted and that is why her post is invalid (ad hominem reasoning), you present exactly what specific “over the top attacks” you think have been made by her, and a logical reasoning of why you think those attacks are invalid. The reasons you give need to be completely independent of Linda’s person or character to be valid, locally correct arguments in this case. However, please start a new thread about those “over the top attacks,” as this thread is about the philosophy of argument in general. Thank you.

[Huldah]

One fallacy I see a lot on this forum is, "Because a person has done many good things, they cannot therefore have done any bad things." Does anyone know the formal name of this kind of fallacy?

[GodisFaithful]

Huldah,

In the context of GCx pastors, I call this fallacy "Those Who Have Been Appointed Have a Heart of Gold".

[GodisFaithful]

Among the pastors, the fallacy is called "I See Nothing, Nothing."

(You have to watch Hogan's Heros.)

[Linda]

Linda, again you add to, and manipulate my words. I’m sorry but the only term I used was hard heart, and to deny that each of us can struggle with having a hard heart is possibly telling of having a hard heart. Manipulating another’s words also is telling of holding onto an agenda from one perspective. I never brought up the MD and Suzanne issue, and was only discussing with BTDT what we have learned through a few different books we have read.  I have struggled with having a hard heart in a few situations I have dealt with thirty years ago AT the time. Through Christian counseling, reading and surrounding myself with positive people I overcame this, and only through excepting Gods love and forgiveness I needed. From your manipulation and holding onto only your stance and agenda I could assume you have a hard heart, I don’t know, it’s not my place to know. All I’m saying is that it comes across that way. It’s your life, your choice and your consequence to live with,not mine. But I will speak up when I see what is unjust and over the top attacks on people I know to be loving God seeking and God serving people. I hope you can understand my points, as my comment had nothing to do with MD. You gave your opinion, which I don’t feel I have any right to deny your voicing, but some of the over the top attacks I have seen are much different. Even zealforgod who I know well, said as much.

"Linda, again, you add to, and manipulate my words." Ad hominem.

First of all, I wasn't quoting you at all, so I couldn't have added to or manipulated your words. I quoted Badger who was addressing your charge suggesting people here are hard hearted. Badger was making the point that no human being, only God, knows whether someone is hard hearted and/or bitter. I agree with Badger.

Since this discussion was happening on the fallacy thread I thought I would bring it back to the topic by pointing out we've heard it before and it is a form of ad hominem (attacking the person) that happens frequently on the forum and is faulty, but nevertheless often persuasive reasoning, used to win a discussion (was going to say argument, but didn't want to confuse you).

I referenced you when I said, "And since GT said it on the Fallacy thread, I would like to point out that it is a form of ad hominem." Are you saying that you didn't bring the topic of hard heartedness up on the fallacy thread? Because if you hadn't then I would have twisted your words."

In addition, I did not bring up the topic of JD's non-profit status being revoked. In fact, I've known about that for probably 2 months. I just kept it to myself. JD happened to challenge someone to look up his salary on his 990, so I did. That's when I saw it.

Here is the thing. For whatever reason, it has become public that his organization is no longer a 501c3 non-profit. He is claiming it is and people are giving donations and wrongly claiming tax deductions. To my knowledge, Brian Holz (thanks Brian, I see by that you're a true friend to JD) is the only person who reacted properly in this situation by saying he would mention it to JD, but still needs to be corrected (both with the IRS and with his donors). Many seemed to brush over the idea that he should fix it and instead question the motives of the people pointing it out. This is odd. This is cult like defensive behavior of something that is perhaps just a significant, yet understandable oversight on the part of JD. It seems to me a good friend would help JD fix the problem and correct his web page ASAP rather than attacking the motives of the people who pointed it out which is pointless because there is a problem and this doesn't help JD correct the problem.

[araignee19]

One fallacy I see a lot on this forum is, "Because a person has done many good things, they cannot therefore have done any bad things." Does anyone know the formal name of this kind of fallacy?

Good question. I’m not sure, but here is a master list if anyone wants to hunt for it 
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm

[Linda]

Great list.

I'm thinking this is called a "non sequitur". Adam's probably got this, though.

One I heard in a message telling people to not come to this forum was:

"Elders are supposed to be trustworthy. We are elders. Therefore, we are trustworthy."

I think that is circular reasoning, but whatever it is it is a fallacy.

[OneOfMany]

I think learning to identify Fallacies and to name them as they happen on this Forum could be very helpful in keeping discussions productive.

[DarthVader]

Looking at the list, I'd say #45 comes closest in my opinion

"Either/Or Reasoning: (also False Dilemma, All or Nothing Thinking; False Dichotomy, Black/White Fallacy, False Binary): A fallacy of logos that falsely offers only two possible options even though a broad range of possible alternatives, variations and combinations are always readily available. E.g., "Either you are 100% Simon Straightarrow or you are as queer as a three dollar bill--it's as simple as that and there's no middle ground!" Or, “Either you’re in with us all the way or you’re a hostile and must be destroyed!  What's it gonna be?"  Or, if your performance is anything short of perfect, you consider yourself an abject failure. Also applies to falsely contrasting one option or case to another that is not really opposed, e.g., falsely opposing "Black Lives Matter" to "Blue Lives Matter" when in fact not a few police officers are themselves African American, and African Americans and police are not (or ought not to be!) natural enemies. Or, falsely posing a choice of either helping needy American veterans or helping needy foreign refugees, when in fact in today's United States there are ample resources available to easily do both should we care to do so.  See also, Overgeneralization"

E.g., either MD is a saint and all the people who have been helped by him and the great kids he's raised prove he is, or he's awful, terrible, bad, bad, bad which can't be true because of all the good things he did..Sounds similar to the third line of the paragraph above.

[Greentruth]

Sorry I adhominem your strict and always on topic thread rule, that you all follow so close. Kind of made me chuckle. This all reminds me off my dog chasing his tail. Maybe BTDT and I can continue our discussion elsewhere, without infringing on your adhominen fixation, of which could be claimed in any disagreement. It’s obvious we translate issues differently. You say adhominem to what many see as truth.

[Linda]

GT, I'm pretty sure you don't know what ad hominem means.

You say ad hominem to what many see as truth.

This makes no sense.

Ad hominem refers to the REASON you give for why you believe something.

If I say, 2 + 2 = 5, and you say, "You are wrong. 2 + 2 does not equal 5 because you are bitter and talk about math too much", you have engaged in ad hominem. You may or may not be correct in pointing out the error in the equation, but the REASON you gave is unrelated to solving the problem. That is what has been happening here for MONTHS and has brought much tension to the forum.

Tell us WHY you think we are wrong in our opinions. Don't tell us we are bitter, tell us what is wrong with the position we are taking on a theological issue.

Ad hominem is basically attacking the person's character.

Ad hominem is calling people names. Calling a person bitter, hard hearted, unloving, obsessed with the forum, these are all attacks on the PERSON. These do nothing to address the topics being discussed.

[omelianchuk]

Great list.

I'm thinking this is called a "non sequitur". Adam's probably got this, though.

One I heard in a message telling people to not come to this forum was:

"Elders are supposed to be trustworthy. We are elders. Therefore, we are trustworthy."

I think that is circular reasoning, but whatever it is it is a fallacy.

No sequitur it is. And the sort of reasoning reported here is too. It's not hard to make it work logically though.
1. Every elder is trustworthy.
2. We are elders.
3. Therefore, we are trustworthy.

Premise 1 is questionable though, which is why they say "supposed to be." Once you change that, the conclusion changes to "We are supposed to be trustworthy."

The best way to learn more about fallacies is to study logic.

Oh, and sometimes ad hominem arguments are legitimate if the point of them is to uncover inconsistent commitments of an opponent and advance inquiry into a deeper principle. For example, Jesus asks the Pharisees who object to his healing on the Sabbath (Luke 14:5): "If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?" This inquiry doesn't immediately settle the question as to whether healing on the Sabbath is wrong, but puts the Pharisees in the position of having to face the choice between accepting an unacceptable consequence of their Sabbath rules (leaving a terrified child in a well!) or admitting that there are exceptions to the rules, which is contrary to the Pharisees' assumptions. They could have answered, "Well no, Jesus, we would not break the Sabbath by pulling a child or an ox out of a well" but of course that would have made them look Satanic or at least the sort of people you wouldn't want for neighbors.

[Huldah]

You say adhominem to what many see as truth.

Greentruth, I'm not sure you understand what "ad hominem" is about.

Suppose I say, "The moon is made of green cheese."

A valid response would be something like, "We have samples of moon rock, so we know what the moon is really made of, and it isn't cheese." This is a valid argument, not because it's true (which it is) but because it speaks directly to the question at hand, what the moon is made of.

On the other hand, an ad hominem fallacy would be something like, "You're not a geologist, you flunked out of high school, and you're a terrible person, so that proves that the moon is not made of green cheese." Well, no, it doesn't. All it means, if it's true, is that I'm a terrible person who flunked out of high school and who isn't a geologist. None of that has anything to do with what the moon is really made of.

I hope you can see the difference.

[Greentruth]

Your probably right to a point Hulda, but I think Omelianchuk shared closer to where my thinking goes.