"In order to avoid logical fallacies, we need to  know a little about them. When we know what they look like, then  perhaps we can avoid them." In this post I am hoping cover the slippery slope, complex question, and "appeals" to force, pity, consequences, popularity, and ignorance (to name a few).

The slippery slope aims to show that a particular proposition is untrue based on an increasingly unacceptable set of events that would follow. The idea is that if we take one step down a path, that it will set off a chain reaction ending in some sort of dire consequences. The assertion is that one cannot stop at any point once a single decision is made down a "slope". This assertion that you cannot stop at any point down the "slope" generally does not meet what we know of reality since we constantly stop at various points on the "slope". The other problem with the slippery slope is that there is not generally enough evidence to support the unlikely set of consequences. An example would be, "If I make an exception for you, then I would have to make an exception for everyone." Now unless you are unique, you realize that you can make an exception for one person, and not for someone else. If you find yourself saying if A then B, if B then C, if C then D, etc... then you need to make sure that your chain of events is reasonable. This can be a little tricky to spot, but ask yourself, "Have I ever seen this chain of events individually? or Have I ever seen this chain of events as a whole?" If you cannot answer yes, or the dire set of consequences seem improbable, then it probably is a slippery slope.

The complex question is an attempt to tie two otherwise unrelated points together in an attempt to treat them as a single position or statement. A person is made to accept both positions or reject both positions when in reality one may be true while the other is not. It can also be seen as a question that asserts something as true while asking a question. One example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This question cannot be answered without giving credence to the assertion that you beat your wife. Another example is "Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?" This question is meant to be answered as a single proposition, but the illegitimate use of "and" combines two unrelated points together in an attempt coerce someone to accept or reject them both.

Finally, there are the "appeals." Appeal to force essentially says, "You will believe 'xyz' or you will be fired/imprisoned/pummeled." The appeal to pity sounds something like, "You do not like this essay that I spent so much of my limited time on?" It is an attempt to get someone to fall in line essentially using guilt manipulation. The appeal to consequences states, "If we allow this, then our culture will be changed. We should stop them!" The appeal to popularity is an argument that is based on the assertion that lots of people believe it, and therefore must be correct. The appeal to ignorance states, "There really is not that much evidence out there, so you should just believe what I am telling you." Now while I have named multiple "appeals", this list is not all inclusive and there are many more out there. I would encourage you to do a little self study in order to increase your ability to spot them.

My point is that when an assertion is not backed up with valid logic (the conclusion follows from the premise) and does not reflect reality, then you might need to reflect on what you know of logical fallacies. Is there a violation of logic, and in what way? A true worldview or premise will not contradict itself, it will fit the facts of life/experience, and will be something you can live with.

​I encourage right thinking because I encourage searching for the truth. I encourage searching for the truth because I believe truth can be found in and through Jesus who stated, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me." His words offer us a new way of being and living, and when you seek the truth you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul."

By avoiding logical fallacies, we can have a good argument and form a well thought out worldview." In order to avoid logical fallacies, we need to know a little about them. When we know what they look like, then perhaps we can avoid them. Since there are several, I am going to try to address approximately three of them per post. In this post I am hoping cover the self contradiction, false dilemma, and my favorite ad hominem (also known as character assassination). 

The self contradiction is when a statement fails to fulfill its own conditions for rational acceptability or truthfulness. Self contradictions are necessarily false, because when an argument contains premises which contradict each other, no conclusion is possible. This is one of those logical fallacies that is easier to recognize with an example. Here are a few: 1) "I cannot speak a word of English." 2) "You should never believe anything without empirical data." 3) "If God can do anything, God can make a stone so heavy God won't be able to lift it." Obviously the use of English in the first statement contradicts its premise. The second statement asserts a truth that cannot be measured with empirical data making the statement necessarily false. The contradiction in the third statement that God can do anything except lift his exceptionally heavy stone should be obvious, but that is a classic example of a self contradictory statement. 

The false dilemma is a statement that gives a very restricted set of options, when in reality, there are more options available. We generally know the false dilemma by the phrase, "either...or". I am sure you have heard the statement, "You are either for me or against me" when in fact it is sometimes possible to be neither. Interestingly enough, we can find this very statement when Joshua asked a man "with a drawn sword in his hand... Are you for us or for our enemies?" (Joshua 5:13-14) The man stated, “Neither, but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come." The commander of the Lord's army was there on his own business in this case, and was therefore neither for Joshua or his enemies (the false dilemma). A more personal example would be a question that can sometimes be asked of parents, "Do you love me more or my sibling?" The dilemma presents only two options, when in fact as most parents know, we love our kids unequivocally equally. The false dilemma is often the favorite logical fallacy since it reduces an argument or proposition to two options, which can seem like an insurmountable obstacle.

​I call the ad hominem my favorite logical fallacy, because it often reminds me of an elementary school playground. The ad hominem is a statement that shifts an argument from a point being discussed to the personality of the person who stated it. It is an attempt to undermine an idea by attacking the person who is proposing the idea. Some examples are: "Only uneducated people believe that!" or "Don't believe him, he is stupid!" Aside from this form of logical fallacy reminding me of playground banter, the fact is the character of a person does not determine the truth of a statement. In fact, an individual with a very low IQ could state, "A fire is hot!", and rather than attacking the truth of his statement based on his intelligence, most would just say, "Thank you captain obvious!" My point with the ad hominem is that if you have to rely on name calling or character assassination to make your point, then you might have a pretty weak point. Truth is truth no matter who states it, and personal ridicule does not change truth. I now hope that by reading this post you can start to spot these logical fallacies. When you read the news, see an advertisement, or have a discussion with a friend, try to identify one of these logical fallacies. I am certain that you will start to spot them, and in doing so you will begin to think well.

I would encourage you to have a well thought out worldview." How do you you have a well thought out worldview? I have heard it said that "All people are equal, but not all ideas are equal." Logic is one way that we know when one idea is more reasonable than another, because the rules of logic reveal to us the difference between good and bad logic. There are many logical fallacies that I will discuss in a separate post, but in this post I will address some of the aspects of good logic. 

To be clear, I believe Christian faith is pro-logic, and I believe you can have a reasonable faith that does not rest purely on feelings or some authority that others may not recognize. With that being said, make no mistake about it, my personal interactions with Jesus over the past twenty years have made my faith unshakeable. Yet even with my personal interactions with Jesus to rest on, I continually seek to develop a reasonable faith founded on logic so that I can explain well the salvation message of Jesus to those who cannot necessarily walk in my shoes. 1 Peter 3:15 states “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an  answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you  have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ..." 

So with that said, an idea starts with an argument. No, not the type of argument that ends in yelling and hurt feelings, but the type of argument that links an assertion or premise (truth claim) to a rational discussion about whether it reflects reality. A good argument is composed of unambiguous language with valid logic about a premise. The language must be unambiguous (ambiguity=murky meaning) so that the premise is clear or without double meaning. The logic must be valid so that the conclusion follows the premise, and the premise when examined must reflect reality. By avoiding logical fallacies, we can have a good argument and form a well thought out worldview.

​I encourage everyone to have a good argument, and follow the evidence where it leads. The maintenance of preparedness requires continued effort.

"We can use our own minds at this point as opposed to relying on scientist to do our critical thinking for us.” So if this is a call to think for yourself, do you think critically?

Critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment. When you evaluate an issue, do you approach it with objective analysis in order to form a judgement? I would like to propose two things in this post. First, truth can be known. Sounds simple, but we are currently living in a culture that holds the question as the answer and the answer in question. Our culture questions what can be known, and in indecision, it makes a decision to uphold eternal skepticism as a virtue. So I will ask the question again, do you think critically?  Do you discern the truth about something through an objective analysis of the issue? 

The second thing I would ask you as you think critically about an issue would be' "is it livable?" Can you live out the judgement you have formed about an issue? I think sometimes we will ask the right questions, and come up with an answer that upon first inspection gives us an answer we are looking for. The problem is not just the fact that our answer is not objective, but that it is not livable. Does your answer give you hope or comfort? Have you examined the arguments, and counter arguments? 

I want to encourage everyone who says that philosophy is not for them to realize that this is something we all do everyday when we form our worldviews. Since we all have a worldview of some kind, I would encourage you to have a well thought out worldview. Don't be afraid to ask the question, and don't be too lazy to seek the answer. If you seek truth, I am confident you will find it in the one who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.”