Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 210 views

    7 Logical Fallacies

    Uploaded by

    CarlosRamirez
    This document provides a basic glossary of logical fallacies to help Christians effectively argue for their worldview. It lists both informal fallacies like equivocation, begging the question, and ad hominem attacks, as well as formal fallacies like affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. Understanding logical fallacies is important as it allows Christians to discern errors in arguments that contradict the Bible, rather than just knowing that the Bible is true. The glossary covers over 20 common fallacies and their definitions to equip believers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    7 Logical Fallacies

    Uploaded by

    CarlosRamirez
    210 views3 pages
    This document provides a basic glossary of logical fallacies to help Christians effectively argue for their worldview. It lists both informal fallacies like equivocation, begging the question, and ad hominem attacks, as well as formal fallacies like affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. Understanding logical fallacies is important as it allows Christians to discern errors in arguments that contradict the Bible, rather than just knowing that the Bible is true. The glossary covers over 20 common fallacies and their definitions to equip believers.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides a basic glossary of logical fallacies to help Christians effectively argue for their worldview. It lists both informal fallacies like equivocation, begging the question, and ad hominem attacks, as well as formal fallacies like affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. Understanding logical fallacies is important as it allows Christians to discern errors in arguments that contradict the Bible, rather than just knowing that the Bible is true. The glossary covers over 20 common fallacies and their definitions to equip believers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    210 views3 pages

    7 Logical Fallacies

    Uploaded by

    CarlosRamirez
    This document provides a basic glossary of logical fallacies to help Christians effectively argue for their worldview. It lists both informal fallacies like equivocation, begging the question, and ad hominem attacks, as well as formal fallacies like affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. Understanding logical fallacies is important as it allows Christians to discern errors in arguments that contradict the Bible, rather than just knowing that the Bible is true. The glossary covers over 20 common fallacies and their definitions to equip believers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Logical Fallacies

    In order to argue effectively for the Christian worldview, believers should possess a basic
    knowledge of logical fallacies. Just as knowledge without wisdom is detrimental, so is knowing
    Scripture without understanding how to use it. It is one thing to know that the Bible is true, it is another
    to discern the errors in all arguments that attempt to contradict it. The following is a basic glossary of
    both informal and formal logical fallacies. Feel free to add examples below each heading as you
    encounter them.
    Informal Fallacies
    Reification: Attributing a concrete characteristic to something abstract.
    Equivocation: Shifting from one meaning of a word to another within an argument.
    Begging the Question: Merely assuming what one is attempting to prove.
    Question-begging Epithet: Using biased (often emotional) language to persuade people
    rather than using logic.
    Complex Question: Attempting to persuade by asking a loaded question.
    Bifurcation: Claiming there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities when there may
    actually be three or more options.
    Ad Hominem: Directing an argument against the person making the claim rather than the
    claim itself.
    Faulty Appeal to Authority: Endorsing a claim simply based on the person making it.
    The Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresenting an opponents position and proceeding to
    refute the misrepresentation rather than what the opponent actually claims.
    Genetic Fallacy: Dismissing an argument because one objects to the source of the
    argument.
    The Fallacy of Composition: Arguing that what is true of the parts must also be true of
    the whole, or what is true of the members of a group is also true of the group.
    Fallacy of Division: Arguing that what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts
    Hasty Generalization: Drawing a generalization from too few specific examples
    Sweeping Generalization: Applying a generalization to an exception.
    The No True Scotsman Fallacy: When an arguer defines a term in a biased way to
    protect his argument from rebuttals.
    Special Pleading: Fallacy of applying a double standard.
    False Analogy: Making a comparison between two things that are alike in only trivial
    ways, irrelevant to the argument.
    The Fallacy of False Cause: Attributing a false cause-and-effect relationship between
    two events.
    The Slippery Slope Fallacy: Arguing that a particular action will set off an undesirable
    chain of events, when in reality other factors would tend to prevent such a result.
    Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis: Proving a point, but not the point at issue.
    The Appeal to Force/Fear: Arguing for a position on the basis that negative
    consequences will follow if a person does not accept the position.
    The Appeal to Emotion: Fallacy of attempting to persuade people by stirring powerful
    emotions rather than making a logical case.
    The Appeal to Pity: Persuading people to accept a position by generating sympathy for
    those who hold the position.
    The Appeal to Ignorance: Fallacy of appealing to the unknown; specifically when a
    person argues that a claim is probably true simply because it has never been proven
    false.
    The Naturalistic Fallacy: Arguing that since something is a particular way, it is morally
    acceptable for it to be that way.
    The Moralistic Fallacy: Asserting that because something should be a particular way, it
    is a particular way.
    The Fallacy Fallacy: Assuming that a claim is false simply because an argument for
    that position is fallacious.
    Formal Fallacies
    Affirming the Consequent
    Denying the Antecedent

    You might also like