♟️ Logical Fallacies¶

Estimated time to read: 18 minutes

Fallacies are problems with how an argument is constructed. They say nothing about why a conclusion is wrong, other than to say that the conclusion came from a bad argument. Bad arguments can still lead to conclusions that are true. In other words, once we're done labeling the arguments, one also should consider explaining why the conclusions are shit, too.

I am not exempt from these! Please, point out where I use logical fallacies so I can fix / revisit the arguments. I've added a comment section to these notes for exactly that purpose. In fact, I can give you a heads-up that I'll be using Strawman Fallacy for illustrative purposes in the examples for other fallacies.

This is a high-level overview with some short examples I've found. A more comprehensive document would delineate these into formal vs informal fallacies. I'm not doing that here. It's a topic with plenty of material to consume!

Fallacies¶

In the event that you don't find a great, big, wall of text appealing, consider Your logical fallacy is..., a site that presents these ideas in a simpler, approachable way. If you hate brevity and color, stick around!

"Absence of evidence" = There is no evidence present. No evidence has been found. For example: There is no evidence that pink unicorns exist." This does not strictly mean that the argument is impossible, simply that there is no evidence.

"Evidence of absence" = Found evidence demonstrating that something was there but is now missing or gone. For example: "The dust on the mantel shows that the clock has been removed." Evidence of absence is indeed evidence.

This leads to the idea of double-negative equating positive. To say "no one has proven 'not X', therefore X is true" is not a valid argument. No one has ever proven that there are not invisible aliens living in my earlobes, therefore it must be true. No one has proven that God does not exist, therefore, God must exist. This conclusion fits nicely with Falsifiability.

If I am looking for an elephant in my closet and I find no evidence of one, it makes no sense to say "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In this case absence of evidence of an elephant most definitely means an elephant is absent.

If, however, I am looking for an ant in my backyard and I find no evidence of one, it is very possible I didn’t look hard enough or long enough. An ant is small and I likely have missed it. In this case absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Although in this case it would be more correct to say that absence of evidence is not proof of absence. It could very well be taken as evidence; it just that it is not conclusive evidence.

Ad Hominem¶

Criticizing a person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

"We can't trust anything D Michael Quinn says because he got excommunicated! Also he was gay all along."

"Because John is a former Mormon, an apostate from the LDS Church, his argument against the Book of Abraham cannot be considered valid."

Ad Populum (Appeal to Popularity, or to Public)¶

Insisting that your position is true because other people agree with it.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has millions of members. Do you really think that many people can be wrong?”

"So many people, including the pioneers, must have known it were true or they wouldn't have crossed the plains."

Most people believe in God, are they really all wrong?

Just because a lot of people share the same view does not guarantee that the view they share is correct.

This one is kinda silly but I still see it all the time. You can always turn it around by pointing out that most people on earth don't believe in their religion (there is no religion with more than 50% of the world’s population)

By this metric, Catholicism would be a lot more "true" than Mormonism.

909 people died in Jonestown. Why would the 909 die if Peoples Temple wasn't true?

39 people in Heaven's Gate. Why would the 39 die if Heaven's Gate wasn't true?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Popularity

Argument by Assertion¶

Asserting that Mormonism has more truth (or at least many unique truths) than other religions without any demonstration to support that claim.

If truth claims are of eternal importance, one would think that LDS theologists would enumerate and refute other religions' truth claims. Barring the possibility that I simply haven't encountered these arguments, I might conclude that either these arguments won't withstand scrutiny, or eternal salvation isn't really that important.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

Argument from Emotional Experience¶

If you seriously think, meditate, or pray about a claim and you have a salient emotional reaction, the claim is most likely true.

Example: The more I thought about it, the more I felt that Sarah really is madly in love with me and her saying "please stop texting me" is her way of processing her emotions.

Argument from Faith¶

If you want to know if a claim is true or not, you have to try just believing that it's true.

Example: Quija boards prove that Ghosts are real, but Ghosts don't talk to people through Quija boards unless those people sincerely believe that ghosts are real.

Argument from Incompleteness¶

because competing claims lack sufficient completeness, my claim is equally valid and reasonable.

Example: "(pretend it's the 1990s) The Jury is still out on whether or not smoking causes cancer, so I see nothing wrong with smoking 2 packs a day."

Argument from Ignorance¶

because I don't understand the counter-claim, my claim is true.

Example: there's no way that monkeys can turn into humans, so evolution is clearly wrong.

This fallacy holds that something is true until it has been proven false— or something is false until it has been proven true. Both assertions do not follow logically. Ignorance, or lack of knowledge doesn't given any indication as to the truth or falsehood of the statement, logically.

Apply these ideas to the lack of archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon denizens. The idea that “since there isn’t evidence, the church is false” is a fallacy. In this case, it’s absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

The problem here is that there are an infinite number of things that haven't been proven true or false.

So if one believes that Mormonism is aided by lack of evidence to the contrary, one is then saddled with the burden of explaining why one particular thing is true with no evidence and another contradictory assertion is false without evidence.

Argument from the Null Hypothesis¶

Because an event or data point is significantly divergent from a known statistical average, that event or data point can only be explained by outside forces and not random chance.

Example: a traveling salesmen never fails to pray daily for safety, and never fails to catch any of the hundreds of flights he takes every year. On the one morning he accidentally sleeps in, the flight he was supposed to be on crashes. This proves that his prayers were heard and answered.

Appeal to Consequences¶

But if there is no God then there is no meaning or purpose to existence!

The desirability or undesirability of the consequences of a claim are not evidence for or against the claim. This is closely related to Confirmation Bias, but easier to identify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

Appeal to Pity¶

Attempting to sway the audience by using emotional tactics to gain sympathy.

Ex: “Since Mormons have been persecuted throughout the years, this faith must be true or otherwise these people wouldn’t have been attacked.”

It is true that some Mormons have been persecuted over the past two centuries. However, even if it’s true that Mormons have been unduly persecuted, this does not validate Mormonism’s truth claims. If so, would the Mormon consider biblical Christianity to be true merely because Christians around the world are persecuted on a daily basis for their faith?

Appeal to Possibility¶

But its not impossible!

This is surprisingly common. Pretty much anything is possible, we could all be in the Matrix. But possibility is not sufficient to justify belief.

In the context of Mormonism, we'd then need to concede that all those lies about Joseph Smith are also possible. If one were to say that there's no way he destroyed the printing press for the Expositor, or used the Nauvoo Safety Society to defraud followers, this logical fallacy must also apply to that. It's not impossible that he did those things. In fact, there's documentation to support that he did those things.

There is a very small chance that a shark could be lifted from the Atlantic Ocean by a tornado, and flung so far inland that it chomps on you before crashing into the ground. The chances of that are remarkably small, but not zero.

Is it impossible for Nephi to have built a transoceanic ship in ~570 BC? No, it's not impossible. Is it more likely than a localized sharknado ruining your afternoon? 🤷

Bandwagon¶

Believing a view is correct because of its popularity. “Since Mormonism is one of the fastest growing religions, there must be some truth to it.”

Even if it were true that Mormonism is “one of the fastest growing religions,” this does not necessarily mean it’s true. Spiritual truth is not determined by popularity or growth in numbers.

Closely related to Appeal to Popularity.

Burden of Proof¶

But can you prove that Joseph Smith wasn’t a true prophet?

Nearly every discussion will invoke this fallacy. You don’t have to show the church is false. Its their job to demonstrate that the church is true and they will always do everything they can to shift that burden to you so that they can rest upon the logical inability to prove a negative.

"I've got a dragon in my garage. No, I do not feel the need to verify or prove this statement, it's up to you to demonstrate that I'm wrong."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Circular Reasoning¶

God exists because the Bible says so, and God wrote the Bible so it must be true (Note: I'm not sure I've really heard anyone claim that God wrote the Bible. This is an oversimplistic example.)

When the argument being made relies upon the argument being true. This can be difficult to identify sometimes because its not always obvious, but always focus on what assumptions an argument is making, and sometimes you’ll find the conclusion hiding there.

Made up example:

"When I pray to know the BoM is true, then the spirit will give me a good feeling which confirms to me the book is true."

How do you know what you are feeling is a 'spirit' of God making you feel that way, and not just a conditioned feeling, elevation emotion, or meditative peace, or any number of other sources that give you the nice feeling?

"Because the book of Mormon tells me that this feeling comes from the Spirit."

But how do you know the book of Mormon is telling you the truth?

"Because I prayed and I felt the spirit, so I know it is true!"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

False Cause¶

"Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax."

"Why would Joseph Smith die for the Church if he didn't know it were true?"

Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause.

Joseph Smith didn't offer up his life for the church. He went to jail for a variety of factors, including sexual misconduct (with both minors and married women), polygamy, polyandry, fraud, forming a militia, and likely others that aren't coming to mind presently. When faced with the inability to deal with Smith legally, civil unrest grew to mob rule- not satisfied to know that he would actually face justice after a prison sentence, they broke it and killed him.

Moreover, Smith had used a smuggled firearm to shoot at the mob to defend himself, blocking their entrance, trying to escape through a window in a bid for survival. Does this sound like a martyr? Did he "die for the church"?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

False Dilemma¶

Also called False Dichotomy

Claiming that “either” proposition A or B is true when a third option is possible.

“If the Mormon Church isn’t true, then nothing is.”

If you’re wrong about God then you’re going to suffer in hell.

For the above example, this is the fallacy invoked by Pascal’s Wager.

Also commonly used in tandem with the God of the Gaps where God is invoked as a default explanation if science has no answer or a scientific theory is disproved by new observations

Different example:

We must make a simple choice with the Book of Mormon: it is either of God or the devil. There is no other option.

— The Book of Mormon—a Book from God, Elder Tad R. Callister of the Presidency of the Seventy, General Conference October 2011

How confident are we in the conclusion that “there is no other option”?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Disjunction with contraries¶

Ooh, the False Dilemma even has subtopics!

A contrary means that either A or B is true, but not both. A contradictory means if A is true, then B is false. Both are an example of XOR logic gate (exclusive "or")

A politician could say "either vote for me, or lose the dream of a great America!" A pet food manufacturer could say "you can either buy our dog food, or your dog will be sad forever."

Faulty Appeal to Authority¶

Basing an argument on the opinion of a person or group.

“I know for a fact that the Bible cannot be trusted. My bishop is a doctor and he said so.”

This person’s bishop may be knowledgeable in his particular field of expertise, but it does not necessarily mean he is an expert when it comes to the accuracy of the Bible.

Other example would be trusting one's preferred politician to know about microbiology. Or, trusting a cardiac surgeon to know how to handle virology. Good thing neither of those things have ever happened! 🙃

Genetic fallacy¶

Rejecting an idea based on its origin rather than on its merit.

“I found this video critical of Mormonism on a website that is not sponsored by the church, so its claims must be wrong.”

Rather than disparaging the source of the information, the argument itself should be the focal point of the disagreement. Someone you don't like can be correct.

God of the Gaps¶

So what caused the Big Bang then? How else do you explain [something that isn’t fully understood]?

Humans have a long and well documented history of invoking deities and other universal explanations (magic etc) to fill the gaps of our knowledge.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

No true Scottsman¶

Yeah but she (exmo) never had a testimony to begin with

Nearly always used to dismiss experiences from former members. Very common among many faiths. If the claim is only made after a member leaves its a form of ad hoc rationalization and confirmation bias.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Personal incredulity¶

Because something is difficult to understand, it must be untrue.

“The doctrine of the Trinity is complicated and can’t be comprehended. This proves it can’t be true.”

Trying to harmonize all the verses in the Bible that speak about God certainly involves in-depth study. But just because an explanation of something is not always simple does not make the premise false. There are many mysteries in Mormonism that also can’t be understood, including determining the reality of an infinite regression of the gods (determining just who the first God is).

Red herring¶

Diverting the topic at hand by introducing another topic.

After having a Christian share about salvation by grace through faith outside the grounds of Temple Square, a Mormon responds, “Do you share your faith at Muslim mosques or Buddhist temples? If not, why don’t you go to those places instead of targeting Latter-day Saints?”

Getting off-topic is a diversionary tactic meant to sideline the conversation. An appropriate reply might be: “I’d be more than happy to talk about that issue, but could we first finish our conversation on salvation by grace through faith?”

Sharpshooter fallacy¶

Focusing on all the "hits" and ignoring all the "misses".

The name comes from a metaphor about a person from Texas who fires a gun at the side of a barn, then paints a shooting target centered on the tightest cluster of shots and claims to be a sharpshooter.

— Wikipedia

The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when data is selectively collected and then used to support the conclusion of the argument. It is commonly used to describe situations where a person or group of people cherry-pick data points from a set of available data to support a predetermined conclusion, giving the impression that the data points were chosen for their relevance to the conclusion. In other words, the data points are chosen not for their relevance to the conclusion, but for their ability to support the conclusion.

— Source

President Nelson predicted the Covid pandemic by saying that 2020’s general conference would be unlike others. Or his post to 'take your vitamins'.
Joseph Smith predicted the civil war! (Ignoring his predictions of the end of the world or 2nd coming of Christ, or other vague prophecies)

Special Pleading¶

Having standards that apply to others, but not oneself, without applying justification for the exemption.

“Yes, Doctrine and Covenants 1:31 does say the Lord will not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, but Heavenly Father loves me, so I’m sure I will be eligible for exaltation.”

Even though LDS scripture insists that no sin will be acceptable to God, those using this argument feel that they are somehow exempt from any penalty for their sin.

This can happen between sects of Christianity, trying to make a case for their congregation. Every faith adherent has spiritual experiences, they will nearly always invoke a special pleading fallacy to try and claim theirs is special and different.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Strawman Fallacy¶

Making a particular position look weak by misrepresenting the argument.

"The Big Bang claims the universe came from nothing!"

"People leave the church over inconsistencies or little faults of people in its history!"

According to History of the Church 6:476, Joseph Smith said the following: “Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. . . . All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.”

Smith gives an inaccurate analysis of what the Trinity teaches, making it easy to dismiss a God as described here. This version is certainly not an argument anyone would want to believe or defend.

We have all experienced a misrepresentation of what we said or believe, and it’s important to call out this fallacy. This is probably the most common fallacy of all time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Tu quoque¶

Latin for "you too." Can also be called "two wrongs don't make a right" fallacy.

An attempt to ignore a criticism by pointing out an inconsistency or hypocrisy on the part of the critic.

“Yes, it is true that several of our past leaders made remarks that certainly sound racist. But have you never exhibited behavior that might make you appear to be prejudiced or bigoted? Besides, many people during that time period had similar views.”

Instead of explaining the racist comments made by past LDS leaders, it avoids the criticism by pointing out the possible hypocrisy of the person asking the question.

Rationalist Principles to understand¶

Motivated Reasoning vs Critical Reasoning¶

The most important rationalist principle in my opinion, and the root cause of most of these fallacies is reasoning backwards from a favored or predetermined conclusion. We all do this because we have strong preferences for truth outcomes and we let those bias us. The wikipedia article is excellent:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

Evidence¶

If something is claimed as evidence in favor, then the inverse must be evidence against. E.g. if someone claims their deity helped them find their keys and this is evidence in favor, ask them if they hadnt found their keys, would they have counted that as evidence against God’s existence? This is how you spot confirmation bias.

Sagan Standard¶

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

Hitchen's Razor¶

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

Pathos, Logos, Ethos¶

None of these should be counted as wrong, or bad. They are rhetorical devices used to make an argument. I'll observe them here for you to keep in mind for the future.

Pathos is appealing to the audience’s emotions when trying to argue. (e.g. Moroni’s promise). Having an emotional response to something is not evidence that it is true.

Logos is appealing to logic, which is what I am attempting to do with these notes.

Ethos is an appeal to authority, or to ethics. If you don’t have a sufficient knowledge base to understand a logos argument, the best you can do is appeal to the consensus of the experts, but a logos argument is preferred. In general the strength of your opinion ought to be proportional to the depth of your knowledge on the subject.