Logic and the Message: Difference between revisions

(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 87:

=The Ad Hoc Rescue=

The '''ad hoc rescue fallacy''' occurs when someone invents a new, unsupported excuse or hypothesis just to save their original argument from being proven wrong. Instead of admitting defeat or providing real evidence, they constantly adjust their claim on the spot to dodge counterexamples.

'''Why it happens'''

The term ''ad hoc'' is Latin for "to this". People use this fallacy out of a desperate desire to be right, or an emotional attachment to an idea. When faced with legitimate evidence that completely destroys their point, they try to patch the leak by making up new rules or qualifiers with absolutely no basis in fact.

'''Real-world examples'''

* '''The Leprechaun Defense:''' A person claims leprechauns live in their backyard. When you look and see absolutely nothing, they claim, "They are completely invisible and make no noise." When you point out thermal cameras don't see them either, they claim, "They don't emit heat." They are continuously inventing new rules to make sure their claim can never be disproven.

* '''No True Scotsman:''' Someone claims that "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." You bring up their Uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman and loves sugar on his porridge. Instead of admitting they are wrong, they respond, "Well, no ''true'' Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," arbitrarily redefining who counts.

* '''Conspiracy Theories:''' Someone claims a specific psychic has magical abilities. When scientific testing proves they cannot read minds, the believer explains, "Your skepticism blocked their psychic energy."

'''How to handle it'''

Recognizing this fallacy is a great step toward better critical thinking. You can address it by pointing out that an argument that cannot be disproven under any circumstances is scientifically meaningless. Ask the person what ''would'' count as valid evidence to disprove their belief, or require them to back up their new, on-the-spot excuses with actual, objective proof.

==Moving the Goalposts==

Moving the goalposts is a specific type of ad hoc rescue, meaning it is closely related but has a slight difference in focus.

The method of moving the criteria for “proof” out of the range of whatever evidence currently exists. If new evidence comes to light meeting the prior criteria, the goalpost is pushed further back. Sometimes impossible criteria are set up at the start for the purpose of denying an undesirable conclusion.

::“''You weren’t there when the cloud happened, so you don’t know how it happened''.”

Since we can’t go back in time and “be there”, there is no possible way to prove it didn’t happen as William Branham said, though the evidence in this particular case is so strong, you could actually argue not only for an overwhelming inductive case, but also for an empirical, deductive refutation of his claim, because of the law of non-contradiction.

::''The law of non-contradiction says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, “The law of non-contradiction is false,” he would have a problem. Without the law of non-contradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false.''<ref>Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 16.</ref> All logic depends on this simple principle. Scripture very clearly affirms the law of non-contradiction:

:::John 2:21 - ''No lie is of the truth.''

:::2 Timothy 2:13 - ''He (God) cannot deny himself.''

:::Titus 1:2 - ''God . . . cannot lie.''

::Therefore even God's Word must be in harmony with the law of non-contradiction.

While there can be truth in a lie, there can be no lie in the truth.

=Equivocation=

Line 117:

Line 154:

# '''The Motte:''' When an opponent attacks or criticizes the extreme claim, the speaker pretends they only meant a much more reasonable, safe claim.

# '''The Switch:''' Once the critic accepts the safe claim, the speaker claims victory for the original, controversial argument, falsely equating the two.

~~=Moving the Goalposts=~~

The method of moving the criteria for “proof” out of the range of whatever evidence currently exists. If new evidence comes to light meeting the prior criteria, the goalpost is pushed further back. Sometimes impossible criteria are set up at the start for the purpose of denying an undesirable conclusion.

~~::“''You weren’t there when the cloud happened, so you don’t know how it happened''.”~~

Since we can’t go back in time and “be there”, there is no possible way to prove it didn’t happen as William Branham said, though the evidence in this particular case is so strong, you could actually argue not only for an overwhelming inductive case, but also for an empirical, deductive refutation of his claim, because of the law of non-contradiction.

::''The law of non-contradiction says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, “The law of non-contradiction is false,” he would have a problem. Without the law of non-contradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false.''<ref>Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 16.</ref> All logic depends on this simple principle. Scripture very clearly affirms the law of non-contradiction:

~~:::John 2:21 - ''No lie is of the truth.''~~

~~:::2 Timothy 2:13 - ''He (God) cannot deny himself.''~~

~~:::Titus 1:2 - ''God . . . cannot lie.''~~

~~::Therefore even God's Word must be in harmony with the law of non-contradiction.~~

~~While there can be truth in a lie, there can be no lie in the truth.~~

=Reductio ad absurdum=

@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 =The Ad Hoc Rescue=
+The '''ad hoc rescue fallacy''' occurs when someone invents a new, unsupported excuse or hypothesis just to save their original argument from being proven wrong. Instead of admitting defeat or providing real evidence, they constantly adjust their claim on the spot to dodge counterexamples.
+'''Why it happens'''
+The term ''ad hoc'' is Latin for "to this". People use this fallacy out of a desperate desire to be right, or an emotional attachment to an idea. When faced with legitimate evidence that completely destroys their point, they try to patch the leak by making up new rules or qualifiers with absolutely no basis in fact.
+'''Real-world examples'''
+* '''The Leprechaun Defense:''' A person claims leprechauns live in their backyard. When you look and see absolutely nothing, they claim, "They are completely invisible and make no noise." When you point out thermal cameras don't see them either, they claim, "They don't emit heat." They are continuously inventing new rules to make sure their claim can never be disproven.
+* '''No True Scotsman:''' Someone claims that "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." You bring up their Uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman and loves sugar on his porridge. Instead of admitting they are wrong, they respond, "Well, no ''true'' Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," arbitrarily redefining who counts.
+* '''Conspiracy Theories:''' Someone claims a specific psychic has magical abilities. When scientific testing proves they cannot read minds, the believer explains, "Your skepticism blocked their psychic energy."
+'''How to handle it'''
+Recognizing this fallacy is a great step toward better critical thinking. You can address it by pointing out that an argument that cannot be disproven under any circumstances is scientifically meaningless. Ask the person what ''would'' count as valid evidence to disprove their belief, or require them to back up their new, on-the-spot excuses with actual, objective proof.
+==Moving the Goalposts==
+Moving the goalposts is a specific type of ad hoc rescue, meaning it is closely related but has a slight difference in focus.
+The method of moving the criteria for “proof” out of the range of whatever evidence currently exists. If new evidence comes to light meeting the prior criteria, the goalpost is pushed further back. Sometimes impossible criteria are set up at the start for the purpose of denying an undesirable conclusion.
+::“''You weren’t there when the cloud happened, so you don’t know how it happened''.”
+Since we can’t go back in time and “be there”, there is no possible way to prove it didn’t happen as William Branham said, though the evidence in this particular case is so strong, you could actually argue not only for an overwhelming inductive case, but also for an empirical, deductive refutation of his claim, because of the law of non-contradiction.
+::''The law of non-contradiction says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, “The law of non-contradiction is false,” he would have a problem. Without the law of non-contradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false.''<ref>Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 16.</ref>  All logic depends on this simple principle.  Scripture very clearly affirms the law of non-contradiction:
+:::John 2:21 - ''No lie is of the truth.''
+:::2 Timothy 2:13 - ''He (God) cannot deny himself.''
+:::Titus 1:2  - ''God . . . cannot lie.''
+::Therefore even God's Word must be in harmony with the law of non-contradiction.
+While there can be truth in a lie, there can be no lie in the truth.
 =Equivocation=
@@ Line 117: / Line 154: @@
 # '''The Motte:''' When an opponent attacks or criticizes the extreme claim, the speaker pretends they only meant a much more reasonable, safe claim.
 # '''The Switch:''' Once the critic accepts the safe claim, the speaker claims victory for the original, controversial argument, falsely equating the two.
-=Moving the Goalposts=
-The method of moving the criteria for “proof” out of the range of whatever evidence currently exists. If new evidence comes to light meeting the prior criteria, the goalpost is pushed further back. Sometimes impossible criteria are set up at the start for the purpose of denying an undesirable conclusion.
-::“''You weren’t there when the cloud happened, so you don’t know how it happened''.”
-Since we can’t go back in time and “be there”, there is no possible way to prove it didn’t happen as William Branham said, though the evidence in this particular case is so strong, you could actually argue not only for an overwhelming inductive case, but also for an empirical, deductive refutation of his claim, because of the law of non-contradiction.
-::''The law of non-contradiction says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, “The law of non-contradiction is false,” he would have a problem. Without the law of non-contradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false.''<ref>Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 16.</ref>  All logic depends on this simple principle.  Scripture very clearly affirms the law of non-contradiction:
-:::John 2:21 - ''No lie is of the truth.''
-:::2 Timothy 2:13 - ''He (God) cannot deny himself.''
-:::Titus 1:2  - ''God . . . cannot lie.''
-::Therefore even God's Word must be in harmony with the law of non-contradiction.
-While there can be truth in a lie, there can be no lie in the truth.
 =Reductio ad absurdum=