Today in the Apologetics Class, we watched a video lecture by Dr. Jason Lisle on Evolution and Logical Fallacies:
Here was the note-taking form I handed out:
Evolution and Logical Fallacies – Dr. Jason Lisle (1-14-2018)
- The Christian has a moral obligation to be r__________, to think God’s thoughts after Him.
- Most Christians don’t know how to identify logical fallacies, and to point them out.
- It’s embarrassing when you hear someone advocating your position, but they do it p__________
- Logic, the study of the principles of correct and incorrect reasoning.
- Knowing logic will revolutionize the way that you d_____________ the faith.
- Proposition, a statement that a_________ or d_________ something and is either true or false.
- Argument, a group of prepositions where the truth or one is claimed to f_____ from the others.
- Although we’re to argue for the faith and contend for the faith, we’re not to be a_____________ or c______________.
- Deductive syllogism, where you have two premises and the conclusion.
- The claim being demonstrated is the conclusion.
- The other statements which provide support our premises.
- Logical fallacy, a common error in the c__________ of r____________________.
- A fallacy would be when the conclusion does not f_____________ from the premises.
- Whenever you have true premises and a false conclusion, it’s definitely a fallacy.
- Logical fallacies tend to be p_______________.
- An argument is it valid if the conclusion does follow from the premises.
- An argument is invalid if the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
- There are 2 ways that an argument can be bad:
- An e___________ in the chain of reasoning, a fallacy.
- A false p_____________.
- Even an invalid argument can, by a________________, have a true conclusion.
- Two kinds of logic’
- D___________ Argument, the conclusion is definitely true if the premises are true.
- It is either valid or invalid, sound or unsound
- I____________ argument, the conclusion is likely to be true if the premises are true.
- It is either strong or weak
- Informal Logical Fallacies (Ordinary Language) – 3 categories:
- Fallacies of A_____________ – Equivocation, Amphiboly, Accent, Division, Composition, Reification. There is something unclear or vague in the argument.
- Fallacies of P______________ – Sweeping Generalization, Hasty Generalization, Bifurcation, Begging the Question, Question Begging Epithet, Complex Question, “No True Scotsman”, Special Pleading, False Analogy, False Cause, Slippery Slope. The argument assumes something that is unwarranted.
- Fallacies of R_______________ – Genetic Fallacy, Abusive ad Hominem, Circumstantial ad Hominem, “Straw Man”, Irrelevant Thesis, Appeal to (Authority, Ignorance). Where the conclusion is not strongly related to the premises.
- Equivocation – the fallacy of sh_____ the meaning of a word within an argument (bait & switch)
- Reification – attributing concrete (and often p_____________) characteristics to an abstraction.
- Bifurcation – (false dilemma, “either-or fallacy”) – falsely assuming only ___ exclusive options
- Begging the Question-(circular reasoning) the conclusion of an argument is incorporated into premises or a premise d________ on the conclusion. This fallacy is actually “valid”, but arbitrary.
- Question-begging Epithet-using b____ language to support conclusion that is logically unproved
- Complex Question-phrasing a question such that it a______________ the conclusion.
- No True Scotsman-protecting claim from c__________-argument by defining term in biased way
- Ad Hominem Fallacy-when an argument is directed against a p______ rather than their p_____
- Irrelevant Thesis-when an argument proves a point that is n___ at i___________
Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis can be answered by this response: True, perhaps. But i___________
- Straw-man-an argument against a mis____________ (rather than actual) of opponent’s position
- Faulty Appeals-when person appeals to something/someone in way not relevant to the c______
- Deductive logic: Propositional Logic: If-then, And, Or, Not
- Mixed hypothetical Syllogism (these are valid):
- if p then q, p, therefore q (affirming the antecedent)
- if p then q, ~q, therefore ~p (denying the consequent)
- Formal Fallacies (Mixed hypothetical Syllogisms which are invalid):
- If p then q, ~p, therefore ~q (denying the antecedent)
- If p then q, q, therefore p (affirming the consequent) – most common committed
- Pointing out logical fallacies to evolutionists take the w____________ out of their sails.
- Have you heard any of these logical fallacies committed? If so, where (e.g. TV, Political debates, during witnessing situations, etc.)?
- Have you tried to point out incorrect use of logic to another? What was their reaction?
- Have you, yourself, committed any of these fallacies?
- Do you agree that arguing in a way that commits fallacies is a bad thing?
- Which is the hardest fallacy to spot?
- How can you point out a fallacy, while still upholding the 2nd part of 1 Peter 3:15 (“with gentleness and respect”)?