Count the Logical Fallacies!

There's an e-mail making the rounds that I saw this morning, which gave me quite a chuckle. So of course I have to share it with you.

Spot the logical fallacies! I've included in parentheses the most blatant logical fallacy, but please feel free to comment with others. I left the original in all caps so that you can appreciate it in all its glory.

IN CHEMISTRY, HE TURNED WATER TO WINE. ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan – this applies to many in the list, but I'll just state it once. If something goes against the laws of nature and physics, you're going to need more evidence than just an apocryphal tale. This is also anecdotal evidence.)

IN BIOLOGY, HE WAS BORN WITHOUT THE NORMAL CONCEPTION. (ditto to the above)

IN PHYSICS, HE DISPROVED THE LAW OF GRAVITY WHEN HE WALKED ON WATER AND THEN LATER, ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN. (ditto to the above)

IN ECONOMICS, HE DISPROVED THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURN BY FEEDING 5000 MEN WITH 2 FISHES & 5 LOAVES OF BREAD. (once again, ditto to the above)

IN MEDICINE, HE CURED THE SICK AND THE BLIND WITHOUT ADMINISTERING A SINGLE DOSE OF DRUGS. (ditto again. In this case, if this story is accurate, Jesus was one of three things; a magician – common at the time, taking advantage of the placebo effect, or a scam artist in which 'healee' was a plant.)

IN HISTORY, HE IS THE BEGINNING AND THE END. (Meaningless statement)

IN GOVERNMENT, HE SAID THAT HE SHALL BE CALLED WONDERFUL COUNSELOR, PRINCE OF PEACE. (Again, meaningless statement and irrelevant)

IN RELIGION, HE SAID NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH HIM; (ditto to the above)

SO, WHO IS HE?
HE IS JESUS!

JOIN ME AND LET'S CELEBRATE HIM; HE IS WORTHY.

THE EYES BEHOLDING THIS MESSAGE SHALL NOT BEHOLD EVIL. (Baseless claim, easily disproved)

THE HAND THAT WILL SEND THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYBODY SHALL NOT LABOR IN VAIN. (ditto to the above)

AND THE MOUTH SAYING AMEN TO THIS PRAYER SHALL SMILE FOREVER. (ditto to the above)


REMAIN IN GOD AND SEEK HIS FACE ALWAYS. AMEN. (How can anyone remain in God and his face always, when there is no evidence of his existence?)

IN GOD, I'VE FOUND EVERYTHING! (Even your keys? Baseless claim, easily disproved)

The Greatest Man in History Jesus had no servants, yet they called Him Master. (Appeal to the masses – meaningless)

Had no degree, yet they called Him Teacher. (Irrelevant – there were no colleges back then.)

Had no medicines, yet they called Him Healer. (No one had medicines back then.)

He had no army, yet kings feared Him. (Any rabble-rouser was feared, so Jesus is not special in this sense.)

He won no military battles, yet He conquered the world. (In a sense this is true. Just look at the number of Christians in the world today, as well as in history for the last 2000 years. Not to mention the Dark Ages.)

He committed no crime, yet they crucified Him. (Jesus was a political dissident and rabble-rouser. The Romans had no tolerance for such problem makers.)

He was buried in a tomb, yet He lives today. (Baseless, unfounded claim. Anecdotal evidence. Apocryphal tale.)

I feel honored to serve such a Leader who loves us! If you believe in God and in Jesus Christ His
Son, you may wish to send it on.... If not, just ignore it.

If you ignore it, just remember that Jesus said. 'If you deny me before man, I will deny you before my Father in Heaven. (Open threat, also completely baseless.)

Logical Fallacy 14: Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy where you support your argument with arbitrary exceptions that apply only to you or a group that you have a special interest in. Basically it's creating a Double Standard. This fallacy can be hard to recognize.

This is Part 14 in a series about Logical Fallacies.  Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Special pleading makes an excuse for why someone's situation is the exception to the rule. But there's nothing to back up the ad hoc reasoning.

Examples:

Harold Camping's rapture prediction is a good example. When the rapture didn't happen, Camping eventually said that it did, but that there were special circumstances, namely that it was a spiritual rapture instead of a physical one.

Another one that is more direct: "I believe that all drunk drivers should lose their license. But even though I was legally intoxicated I shouldn't be punished because I was fine and I can hold my liquor better than others."

Another form of Special Pleading is the assertion that you don't have the qualifications to comprehend the person's point of view. For example, "As an atheist, you can't understand God because you're on the outside looking in."

How to Refute Special Pleading:

The first thing you can do is tell the person that they are using a double standard with nothing to back it up. The only other thing I can think of is restate the facts that negate the spurious claim.

Another way to go is to give a similar example to what the person is saying, and get them to admit that in that case things would have to go the normal way. Then say that the case they've brought up is basically the same and should be treated the same.

If you have successfully refuted this logical fallacy, please share how you did it!

Sources:

• Skeptics Guide to the Universe
• Wikipedia

A Revelation!

I realized something this morning. As you might know, I have a second blog with a Catholic friend of mine called AtheistCatholic. We have tried to keep the atmosphere friendly, but the comments get a bit heated and get very debate-like which drives me nuts.

I don't like to debate. For someone like me, it makes me incredibly frustrated. Well, I don't mind having arguments with some people. For instance, I can disagree with my husband and many of my friends and we can have a friendly argument where we have different points of view. I usually end up feeling we both hopefully learned something and it seems productive. Awesome.

But there are some people (and some types of people) that I just can't stand arguing with. With them it turns into a debate and I end up feeling extremely frustrated or downright angry. I don't like being frustrated or angry. My revelation is why it's so irritating.

It's because they don't play fair. They use logical fallacies like cats take naps. They play the "offended card" at the slightest disagreement. But the main reason is that their logic is so flawed that it makes me feel crazy just trying to figure out what they said.

My problem is that I can tell that they are doing these things intuitively now, but I can't name the logical fallacy or explain the flawed logic and straighten it out. Sometimes it's because I know the topic well enough to understand it, but not well enough to explain the mistakes of someone else. For this issue, the only solution I see is to learn more deeply about the topics that matter to me.

And I guess I can study the logical fallacies more, right? But the flawed logic, that just boggles my mind. I think I need to study that more. If you have any suggestions for good books that teach logic, let me know! Preferably something that is understandable in everyday language.

Do you have people that you deal with who don't play fair and are really irritating to argue with? How do you deal with them? How do you avoid debating but still get your point across? I can't figure that out either.