Pints With Aquinas - 29: MORE logical fallacies ... and how to win an argument without being a jerk!

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode 29. I'm Matt Fradd. This is the third episode in a three-part series we've been doing on logic and argumentation. So, if you haven't listened to the previous two episodes, go ahead and do that before listening to this one. In the first episode, we spoke about what is an argument. We talked about the things necessary for a good argument. Last week, we spoke about seven common logical fallacies we're likely to encounter. And in today's episode, what we'll do to wrap up, we'll speak about seven more logical fallacies that we didn't discuss last week. And then we'll conclude by talking about how to win an argument without losing a soul.

Starting point is 00:00:56 Great to have you here at Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I would normally pull up a bar stool next to the angelic doctor to discuss theology and philosophy. But over the last three weeks, as I've already mentioned, we've taken time out to discuss logic and argumentation, of which Quinas is the king at. And so I thought it would be helpful for us to learn a little bit about logic and argumentation if we haven't done that already. So today we're going to look at seven more logical fallacies and then talk a bit about how to argue properly in a way

Starting point is 00:01:32 that's actually helpful. Before we do that, I wanted to let everybody know that Catholic Answers have a deal for the listeners of Pints with Aquinas, And here's what it is. A couple of years back, I recorded a DVD called How to Win an Argument Without Losing a Soul. It comes with a study guide, a simple study guide. It's a few pages. It's not like a big elaborate book or anything. A separate interview and the special features of me and Jimmy Akin, if you know who that is, a fantastic Catholic apologist, Catholic convert, talking about how he came to the faith and why it's important when we dialogue with our friends who aren't Catholic that we don't be jerks about it. Anyway, if you want to get that DVD, here's what you can do. Go to shop.catholic.com, and then in the coupon section, type the word pints, and you'll get 30% off.

Starting point is 00:02:28 That's pretty cool. And it's available to the end of 2016. So, if you want to do that, go ahead and do it. Christmas is kind of coming up, so it might be a good idea. If you don't want to do it, don't do it. All right? I'm not telling you what to do. I'm just saying it's an option. All right. Let's get started here. First, let's recap what we talked about last week. Okay, I'm going to go over these seven fallacies real quick. I won't explain what they were because we discussed them last week, but I'll just say their names just to see if you remember what they are for your own benefit. The first was self-referential incoherence. The second was the straw man fallacy. The third was the ad hominem, right? Fourth was to quokway. Fifth was the

Starting point is 00:03:12 genetic fallacy. Sixth, sixth, I've never been able to say that number in my life. Sixth. I always say sixth and people make fun of me and it really hurts. Sixth, it was ad baculum. Seven, ad ignominium. All right, so that's what we looked at. All right, good. Sweet, sweet whiskey. All right, here are the seven we're going to look at today. First, it'll be good ad populum, which is Latin for appeal to the masses or appeal to popularity. ad populum, which is Latin for appeal to the masses or appeal to popularity. The second, ad misericordium, appeal to pity. The third, the false dilemma. Fourth, begging the question. Fifth, the middle ground fallacy. And here we go again with the number. Sixth, the red herring fallacy. And finally, seventh, post hoc ergo propter hoc. And we'll talk about what that

Starting point is 00:04:05 means in a moment. All right, let's get underway. Here we go. Ad populum, appeal to the masses. Now, as you've probably already realized, when people intentionally use a logical fallacy, even if they don't know the names of it or the fact that it's even a thing, the reason they do it and the reason we do it is when we don't really know how to appeal to reason or we think reason isn't on our side. And so we divert and we point to things that really aren't kind of at issue here. So we'll point to the fact that, hey, lots of people don't agree with you. Okay. What's wrong with my argument? So, a couple of examples of the ad populum fallacy might be, who believes in evil spirits today and exorcisms? That's ridiculous.

Starting point is 00:04:52 That is ridiculous, is it? Okay. Well, arguments aren't ridiculous, actually. They're either valid or invalid. So, what's wrong with the argument, you might say. Or someone might say, this idea that God can be proven by logic, look, it's based on outdated philosophy done in the Middle Ages that no one accepts anymore. Really? Well, again, you know, we might point to Aquinas' arguments and say, instead of saying no one accepts them anymore, why don't you show me why I shouldn't? Do you see? So, it's always good to bring people back to the argument at hand. The second fallacy is ad misericordium or an appeal to pity. Now, an example that comes right to mind is sometimes if I'm in an argument with those who want to say

Starting point is 00:05:46 abortion is a morally good thing, or at least a morally okay thing, might say something like, look, I'm a woman. Like, do you have any idea what it's like being a woman and being like, fearful that you're going to be pregnant? Or they might say, I work at a pregnancy center. If you were in my shoes and you saw what these women were going through, maybe you'd change your mind. Now, the reason this fallacy is so persuasive, okay, isn't because of its reasoning or that it's reasonable, but because it appeals to emotion in much the same way that the ad ignominium, we discussed that last week, appeal to shame, right, does. And of course, what we don't want to do is just dismiss it and say, that is a logical fallacy. What is wrong with my

Starting point is 00:06:45 syllogism? Because, you know, you want to be caring. You want to sympathize and empathize with the difficult situations that people go through. And you want to be like, yeah, okay, maybe you're right. I have no idea what it would be like to be a woman and to be scared that I'm pregnant. Yes, that's true. But how does that prove, you know, that the fetus is not a living human person, which is the argument at hand, let's say. All right, an appeal to pity. Number three is the false dilemma. A false dilemma Number three is the false dilemma. A false dilemma reduces the available options to two when there are actually more available. So, as parents, we do this quite often. You know, I might want my kids to go to bed, right? And I'll know that if I say to them, okay, go to bed, maybe they'll whine or, you know, be upset. So, I'll say,

Starting point is 00:07:45 okay, you can go to bed now or you can five minutes and then you can go to bed. Because that's obviously the best option as far as they're concerned. They'll go, yes, that one, we'll choose that one. All right. But of course, there's all sorts of options available to them, but I've limited the available options to two. Now, in theistic apologetics, here's a false dilemma that's often thrown at us by our atheist friends or, well, enemies, I'm not sure who they are, but depending on your relationship with that particular atheist, hopefully they're friends. And this is a false dilemma that goes back to the time of Socrates. In one of Plato's dialogues called Euthyphro, Socrates is dialoguing with Euthyphro about virtue, and he asks Euthyphro

Starting point is 00:08:34 this question, and it's come to be known as the Euthyphro dilemma, okay? Now, I'm rewording it here for our purposes, okay? Here it is. Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it's good? All right. There's the two options. So, that's a dilemma. And it's a dilemma because as a Christian, we may not wish to choose either of those. You know, is something good because God commands it? Well, let's think. If that's true, well, it seems like God could command anything to be done, right? And just because he commands it, it would be good. Like torture or I'm trying to think of examples that aren't totally, totally heinous. Like disrespect to parents or these sorts of things. I'm trying to think of examples that aren't totally, totally heinous, like the disrespect

Starting point is 00:09:25 to parents or these sorts of things. And just because he commands them, we're like, okay, well, it's good because God commanded it. Okay. Well, I don't think we want to say that. Well, what about the second option? Does God command it because it is good? Well, that's a problem too, in a sense, because if God commands it just because it is good, then it would seem like the good is distinct from God, as if God had to wake up each morning and check his 10 commandments and then relay them to us, you know? Well, the reason this is a false dilemma is that there is a third available option, namely, God commands something because He is good. God's nature is the good and His commandments towards us are expressions of that nature. Now, we don't have time to flesh that out, but that's the beginning of a response.

Starting point is 00:10:28 of a response. The fourth fallacy is begging the question. What's that? Well, you beg the question when you assume what you want to prove. You beg the question when you assume what you want to prove. So, it would be like saying to your teacher, you can't give me a C, I'm an A student. And the teacher's like, well, apparently you're not, right? What's another example of this? I've heard Christians argue in the following way. They'll say, God exists. And you say, well, why? And, you know, maybe they'll say something like, well, the Bible is the word of God after all, and the Bible says God exists. So, you know, since the Bible can't be an error, it must be true. Well, the problem with that sort of argument is you've smuggled into the first premise what you want to prove, namely the existence of God. If you say the Bible is the word of God, you've assumed that

Starting point is 00:11:16 the Bible was written by the person you're trying to say exists, and that's why it doesn't work. It's circular. It begs the question. The fifth fallacy is something that doesn't get talked about a lot. And it's quite simple to explain. The middle ground fallacy. The middle ground fallacy. Just give me one moment while I have a sip of whiskey. The middle ground. See, if I was was awesome i would go back and painstakingly edit through these these podcasts before i uploaded them but i don't have the time for that i have four children i study almost full-time i have a full-time job i don't have time sorry a little defensive there uh the middle ground fallacy okay here's what it is here how here's how it's best expressed or most often expressed. When somebody says something like this, everything in moderation,

Starting point is 00:12:11 really? Everything? Like, what about racism? Like, what about giving heroin to my children? Everything in moderation? Like, no, like, no, we shouldn't do evil in moderation. And sometimes people will throw that around to sort of try and justify the evil they're committing. Okay. Like taking different sorts of drugs or, you know, I got totally hammered last night, but I don't do it often. You know, once in a while is okay. That kind of thing. This is the middle ground fallacy. So, the next time you hear somebody say everything in moderation, you can be like, well, it depends. What is it you're talking about? Number six is the red herring. Did I say that right? Number six. Oh,

Starting point is 00:13:03 that's right. It's just sixth. I've never been able to get that word right. So, the sixth fallacy is the red herring fallacy. Now, what is that, a red herring? A red herring is a fish. And here's why it's a good name for this fallacy. I guess back in the day when people would, maybe still today, I don't know, when people were training bloodhounds, they would want to keep, they would want the bloodhound to stay focused on its quarry. And so, to test the bloodhound, they would drag across the path of where the bloodhound was going, dirty, stinky, old fish called red herrings. And the point, of course, is will the dog get distracted or will it stay on its target? Well, this is something that very often happens in the course of an argument. You'll be dialoguing

Starting point is 00:14:00 with somebody and maybe you feel like you've got a good thing here, you know, a good point you're trying to make. And they say, well, what about this? And you're like, okay, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Yeah. Let me just give you an example. As a Catholic, sometimes, you know, you kind of encounter this sort of shotgun apologetics. What do I mean by that? Well, you know, a shotgun shoots out a bunch of, you know, shrapnel, metal BBs or whatever. That's kind of what happens sometimes as a Catholic when you're dialoguing with a Protestant, you know, because they've got a lot of issues with us. If you're a Protestant, you know, you've probably got a lot of issues with the Catholic church, you know, like, why do you pray to Mary? Why do you worship statues? Why do you think the Eucharist is Jesus? What's the deal with the Pope? Where do you find purgatory in the Bible? Okay. And so, sometimes it's like totally overwhelming

Starting point is 00:14:49 as a Catholic because you start chatting with someone and they throw out a million different things at you. And you're like, ah, I didn't sign up for this. So, it's important we take things one thing at a time. And sometimes what can happen is maybe you're doing a good job responding to your interlocutor and then they throw out another thing and it's meant to distract you, you know, from the argument at hand. So, it's important that you don't get distracted, but you stay on topic. Now, the final fallacy is post hoc ergo propto hoc. Now, that is a Latin phrase, which means post hoc. After this, Now that is a Latin phrase, which means post hoc. After this, therefore, because of this.

Starting point is 00:15:27 Okay. After this, therefore, because of this. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Let me see here. Peter Craved has some cool things to say about this. He says, it's a fallacy of causal induction, that form of induction which consists in reasoning to a cause, and it consists in inferring that one thing is the cause of another simply because the first thing is observed to occur before the second thing. The fact that A is observed to occur before B may be a clue, and it is reasonable to follow this clue further to

Starting point is 00:16:06 determine whether A is the cause of B, but the mere temporal proximity is not a sufficient reason by itself for concluding that A is the cause of B. It may be, or it may not. It may be a mere coincidence, or it may be that A and B are both caused by a third thing, C, or it may be that B causes A. So here's an example. I got this quote here from Mark Twain, who apparently said, my doctor asked me whether I drank two hot scotches every night and I answered him that I did, but only as a preventative of toothaches. I have never had a toothache. only as a preventative of toothaches. I have never had a toothache. Now, that is probably an example of post hoc. You're saying, well, after this, therefore, because of this. I drink my scotches, I don't get toothaches, therefore, that's responsible for that. Here's another example

Starting point is 00:17:00 that Kraft gave, I thought was really funny you know suppose your neighbor says why are you putting all of those little pieces of lemon around your yard and you say to keep the alligators away and your next door neighbor says but there are no alligators within a thousand miles of here here and you say see i told you it works all right so we have to be careful there not to confuse causation with with with maybe correlation. Just because the sun rises when the cock crows or shortly after, that doesn't mean the cock crowing is the cause of the sun's rising. Okay, let's wrap up here today by talking about a couple of things that we can do when dialoguing with friends that I think we often do a poor job doing. I'm going to say a couple of things that we can do when dialoguing with friends that I think we often do a poor job doing, okay? I'm going to say a couple of things. I think the first

Starting point is 00:17:50 thing is that we need to actually listen to people. Just go ahead and admit it. You don't like doing that. When you think you're right and you think the person you're dialoguing with is wrong, you don't like listening to them. You'd much rather listen to how brilliant you are, right? Unless you're just completely different to me and the other humans that I've encountered, I think this is probably the case with you, right? So, this is my inductive argument, right? You're probably like that. I think we all are. So, I think it's important that we make a real effort to listen to people. So, maybe if you get into a dialogue with someone, maybe at a coffee shop, maybe at school, maybe at work,

Starting point is 00:18:29 you might make the mental decision. Okay, I'm going to sit down and I'm going to just listen to this person. So, in this first encounter, I'm actually not going to put forward any arguments of my own. If they ask me a question, I'll respond to it briefly, but I'll ask them questions. I'll not only show them that I'm interested, but I will be interested by the questions that I ask. And I'll also come to try and fully understand, as best as I can, their position. And here's why. While you and I might not be able to agree with a certain point of view, a certain argument, we can at least sympathize with maybe the reasons this person came to hold this or that belief. People don't generally hold to positions they know to

Starting point is 00:19:15 be in defiance of the truth, right? They've got reasons for these things. And again, we might not agree with those reasons, but we can try to meet them wherever we can. So I think that's the first thing. Second thing I'd want to say is please don't be afraid to say, I don't know. I say it like every other day when people like ask me questions, you know, sometimes I'm out there speaking and someone raises their hand, you know, in a crowd of 2000 people. And I'm like, I kind of feel stupid, right? Because I'm like, I wish I knew this answer. I probably should. I don't. If you're in a dialogue with somebody, just be honest with them.

Starting point is 00:19:50 Say, that's a great question and I'm sorry, I actually don't know, but would you mind if I looked into it and got back to you? Okay. But then make sure you get back to them or else I'll think, ah, I guess there was no answer to that. So, it takes humility, doesn't it? It's all right not to know. The final thing I just want to say is that you are not responsible for the conversions of other people. And sometimes you and I think that we are, or we act as if we are. It is God who converts hearts. And you and I plant the seeds. You and I love these people. We take interest in their lives, not just in this particular part of their life or this particular belief that they hold, but in them holistically. And we recognize that it is God who converts hearts, not us. And so, maybe you're listening to me today and your parents are far from the faith, or your husband is, or your children are, and you can feel

Starting point is 00:20:50 a whole lot of pressure. And you might think, well, if only I gave them the right book, or if only I was smarter, or if only I was whatever. Look, just relax because you can't convert them even if you were brilliant, even if you had the right book. Conversion is a work done by God. What is in your capacity and my capacity is, as best as we're able, to love people, to take their questions seriously, and to pray and to fast for them. So, this sums up our three-part series of logic and argumentation. It's been very brief. Certainly, by no means was it meant to be an all-encompassing study, but I hope it at least maybe got your feet wet, as it were. A couple of things I want to say before we end today. If you haven't yet bought my book,

Starting point is 00:21:44 Pints with Aquinas, 50 plus deep thoughts from the angelic doctor, please consider doing that. If you go to amazon.com right now and type in Pints with Aquinas, by the way, don't type in pants with Aquinas because I've done that. And yeah, you see yoga pants. I'm like, this has nothing to do with what I want. That would be awesome if you could get my book because'm like, this has nothing to do with what I want. That would be awesome if you could get my book because that would support this show. It would support me and my family. But also the book will be a blessing to you. It's getting good reviews, I think. And I know you'll like it. So please consider getting that. I'd also like to ask you to review Pints with Aquinas on iTunes,

Starting point is 00:22:25 if you don't mind. And lastly, I want to say get ready for next week because next week I'm going to be interviewing Catholic apologist Trent Horn about the question, has science buried God? It's going to be a fascinating conversation. So if you've got friends who maybe haven't listened to Pints with Aquinas and you think would be interested in something like that, tell them to subscribe.

Starting point is 00:22:45 Until next time, God bless you. To carry you. To carry you. And I would give my whole life to carry you. To carry you. To carry you. To carry you. To carry you, to carry you, to carry you, to carry you.

Pints With Aquinas - 29: MORE logical fallacies ... and how to win an argument without being a jerk!

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.