8

As mentioned in the comments, it is not a fallacy. It is a question. That is, presuming that you are arguing that your God exists. If you are just arguing that at least one god exists, then it is a red herring. But if you are arguing further then the appropriate response is to answer the question. If they, say, ask "why not Zeus" when you have been ...


5

As currently phrased, this does not have the form of an argument, and therefore cannot be a fallacy. As @Josiah noted, this is a completely reasonable question to ask (if asked in good faith, as part of a discussion) and is perhaps best addressed as such. However, as I read you, you're asking about this question used in a purely rhetorical fashion, as a ...


3

"A is B" and "A is not B"…. Are both of the above statements mutually exclusive? If so, then would that not mean that the principle of non-contradiction is self-evidently true? Assume the truth of statements "A is B" and "A is not B". Now assume A is true. The combination of premises means that the following is true: B and not-B. Such a conclusion is ...


3

Well, "incoherent" isn't set terminology. I'll go over which concepts are used to evaluate arguments and how they might relate to arguments being called "incoherent". If we want to formally reject an argument, we'll reconstruct it into propositional logic and examine for validity and soundness. Such an argument might look like this: P1) If it rains then ...


3

The apparent difficulties in this argument arise from the way the words and symbols that you are using are working together to create an imprecise discussion regarding the probabilities of picking an individual from a group versus the probabilities of looking at the traits of a certain individual. We get in trouble when we don't think precisely about the ...


3

I've taught Critical Thinking for about 20 years, and I have to agree that there is no good textbook. Let me tell you where I'm coming from: Yes, I've seen all the textbooks with their unending treatments of logic ... Ugh! Sure, logic is important, but why the insistence on formal logic proofs? We have logic courses for that. Indeed, just the fact that the ...


3

The fallacy of affirming the consequent can be set out formally : p → q q Therefore p We cannot validly infer the antecedent 'p' from the conditional schema and the affirmation of the consequent 'q'. The conditional could be true ('If p then q') and the consequent, 'q', true. Yet 'p' could be false. This would violate the rule that a falsehood cannot ...


2

I teach my students that arguments should be clear -- which I clarify as concise, concrete, consistent, having a sensible order (conclusion at the front or back), and free from loaded language. Baying "this argument makes no sense to me" and "this argument is incoherent" are both critiques of the clarity of an argument. Sometimes theses critiques are unjust ...


2

Wikipedia describes affirming the consequent in the following way: Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement (e.g., "If the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark,") and invalidly inferring its converse ("...


2

That's a pretty abominable argument in terms of finding a conclusion. I'd go with "it is intellectual honesty." And say there's a hidden premise that some how explains what "intellectual honesty" means somewhere. Primary reason why I'd suggest this is the conclusion is that hierarchically it's at the top level. half the American population believes that ...


2

There are quite a few philosophers who objected that enlightenment thought the modern human either as animal rationale or homo faber, generally as a being whose particularly human traits have to be contrasted with their "natural" or "bodily" needs and existence. Nietzsche called this the Appolonian as contrasted to the Dionysian type. If you think of ...


2

First, let's review some ideas of argumentation. With deduction, we can talk about arguments about being sound and valid. Valid means the structure of the argument leads to the correct conclusion independent of the premises, whereas soundness implies the argument is not only valid, but has true premises. For instance, "If Socrates is in the kitchen, he is ...


2

I think what's confusing you is the distinction between syntax and semantics. Logic is entirely concerned with syntax: with the rules governing the structure and transformation of symbols. Semantics - the meaning of symbols, and the relationship of symbols to the external world — is a separate matter, one that lies outside of logic properly put. 'Truth' is a ...


2

First, allow me to point out that critical thinking is not so much learned as it is developed. There's an analogy here to the physical body. Newborn infants have (more-or-less) the same muscular and skeletal components as full-grown adults, but the muscles and skeletons of adults have changed over time in response to all sorts of factors — diet, hormones, ...


2

Welcome, Iva I think the best help will come from texts on critical thinking. I suggest any of the following: Colin Swatridge, Oxford Guide to Effective Argument and Critical Thinking (Oxford Guides). ISBN 10: 0199671729 / ISBN 13: 9780199671724. Kemp, Gary, Bowell, Tracey, Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. Published by Routledge, 2005. ISBN 10: ...


2

I'm going to follow Habermas here, and assert that what we mean by 'reasoning' is an effort to use language to convince some person of normativity, such as the rightness, goodness, propriety, acceptability, or similar positive valuation of a belief or action. With that in mind, there are four basic modes of rationality: Teleological rationality: an amoral, ...


1

Your question hinges, as PeterJ points out, on the definition of argument. Many might be tempted to dismiss this as an argument because in the narrow technical sense, the natural language obscures the propositions at play. But they are there under the metaphorical exhortation. If we understand using head and heart as figurative metaphor for using reason and ...


1

Partial fallacy, it does not disapprove God, but it does disapprove certain religions Let's assume we have agreed that there is a certain supreme being called God. But what are his positive qualities ? What do we know about him ? For example, what does God command to do with adulterers ? Should we stone them to death (Judaism, Islam) or have them repent ...


1

Welcome, Iva. Thinking critically is no easy task, and there are plenty of resources out there to help you along. What anyone needs to do is develop some strategies for inculcating a set of skills, because critical thinking is a skill, and it is somewhat independent of IQ. There are also impediments to critical thought such as bias, deception, fallacy, ...


1

"Half of the American population believes that the universe is 6000 years old. They are wrong about this. Declaring them so is not 'irreligious intolerance'. It is intellectual honesty." -Excerpt from Introduction to Logic, page no.12. (the author quotes Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation for showing arguments or it's premises and conclusions hidden ...


1

Alice and Bob have one loaf of bread between them. For some reason only one of them is allowed eat the bread; they cannot share it. Alice says "I should have the bread because if I don't have it I'll get very hungry and starve". The fallacy is Begging the Question. Alice is assuming what she sets out to prove. As I see it, this fallacy is the only way ...


1

That is to say you ponder and take into consideration ideas or figures who would agree with your view and reject others because it's easier for you to do this than to detach yourself emotionally from what you want to believe (If you are wrong you would be emotionally devastated). This could be one of the reasons why most people listen to the same mass-media ...


1

Yes this is a fallacy because of the fact we can have instances of true premises and a false conclusion. If the Earth is the third planet from the Sun, then you are Santa Claus. You could put whatever you desire after the word THEN. Some people will find instances where everything checks out factually and they think the resoning works because it works ...


1

The difference between necessary and sufficient conditions can be explained as follows: 1) Vitamin C is a sufficient condition for preventing scurvy This means that scurvy can always be prevented by taking vitamin C. But there may be other ways as well. 2) Vitamin C is a necessary and sufficient condition for preventing scurvy This means that scurvy can ...


1

Taking (or otherwise assimilating) vitamin C is sufficient to prevent scurvy if it can never be the case that X takes vitamin C and X gets scurvy (subject to a specified time period). Taking (or otherwise assimilating) vitamin C is necessary to prevent scurvy if it can never be the case that X gets scurvy despite taking vitamin C (again subject to a ...


1

I think that the problem is an undistributed middle term. The perpetrator is white, male, 25-35, and aggressive. Jack is white, male, 25-35, and aggressive. Jack is the perpetrator. This syllogism is AAA in the second figure. The middle term is "white, male, [&c]", and is undistributed in both premises. There is thus no link between the two statements. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible