What is the name of this logical fallacy?

m_huber · 21st November 2009, 12:13 PM

I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name?

Eyeron · 21st November 2009, 12:43 PM

Why is that a fallacy? When all anybody ever does is tell you (general not specific) is no matter what you do or say you're wrong period, even in situations when you are agreeing with the group (such as if the group you're with says 2 plus 2 is 4 and when you repeat it they say you're wrong). Under these conditions there's only thing you can do, and that is go your own way. Saying anything else means that you have no choice but to agree with the group, even when the entire group is telling you that no matter what you're wrong.

m_huber · 21st November 2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Why is that a fallacy? When all anybody ever does is tell you (general not specific) is no matter what you do or say you're wrong period, even in situations when you are agreeing with the group (such as if the group you're with says 2 plus 2 is 4 and when you repeat it they say you're wrong). Under these conditions there's only thing you can do, and that is go your own way. Saying anything else means that you have no choice but to agree with the group, even when the entire group is telling you that no matter what you're wrong.

This seems to be the same sort of paranoia I was hearing this morning. I don't know exactly how you're defining the various groups here, but it is certainly quite an extrapolation to go from the complete lack of identification that I gave in the OP and saying that the disagreeing group is universally declaring that the first group is wrong. Regardless, even if you are told by a particular group, or even by the entire population of the world who is not in your group, that you are incorrect, that does not in itself make you correct or incorrect. In a way you are correct, in that opinions do not shape reality.

The fallacy is "We know we are right BECAUSE everyone tells us we are wrong." To give this a non-religious analogue, how about "I know I am a good basketball player because everyone tells me I'm bad," or "I know the world is flat because everyone tells me that it's round." If the argument is "I know I am a good basketball player because I have hit 250 consecutive free throws without missing," you might have a point, but one made from relevant evidence.

The argument I have stated is clearly flawed. The conclusion does not follow from the premise:

Everyone tells me that I am wrong
therefore
I am right.

I want to know if there's a name for this.

~enigma~ · 21st November 2009, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by m_huber

I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name?

Correctness by immoral majority

Eyeron · 21st November 2009, 01:13 PM

Here's another argument that fits.

Homosexuals believe they have a right to marriage. Everybody tells them they don't. So that only entrenches their beliefs that they're right.

Eventually over time they are able to argue for their position and it becomes more acceptable to allow homosexuals to be married.

OR....

A person is told all the time that they can't sing. Everybody tells them that. Over time he becomes a singer and a famous one with millions of fan across the country and the world. All because that he or she believed that they are right because everybody tells me so.

~enigma~ · 21st November 2009, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

A person is told all the time that they can't sing. Everybody tells them that. Over time he becomes a singer and a famous one with millions of fan across the country and the world. All because that he or she believed that they are right because everybody tells me so.

Isn't that the life story of Celine Dion? Her childhood friends were right

m_huber · 21st November 2009, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Here's another argument that fits.

Homosexuals believe they have a right to marriage. Everybody tells them they don't. So that only entrenches their beliefs that they're right.

Eventually over time they are able to argue for their position and it becomes more acceptable to allow homosexuals to be married.

OR....

A person is told all the time that they can't sing. Everybody tells them that. Over time he becomes a singer and a famous one with millions of fan across the country and the world. All because that he or she believed that they are right because everybody tells me so.

Neither of those examples addresses or negates the logical fallacy. In the second, if the singer persists using the logic that "everyone told me I am a bad singer, therefore I must be a good one," then he got to a good spot using bad logic. If, instead, he said, "Everyone tells me I'm bad, so I must practice hard to become good," then some semblance of logic is being used.

In the first example (I'm not sure why you chose such a politically charged one), homosexuals generally operate from an argument along the lines of, "We have a stable, lifelong monogamous relationship, therefore we should have the benefits afforded to analogous heterosexual couples," which is quite different than the logical progression you outlined. It isn't necessarily bad for a group to be in, "Everyone is out to get us" mode. There may actually be a situation where this is the case.

If a homosexual group operates on the argument of, "Everyone has told us that we can't get married, so clearly we are doing a good thing and need to keep doing it," they would have a terrible argument. What I hear more often from gay rights groups is along the lines of "Everyone has told us that we can't get married, so we need to change that." The reasoning for why they think they should be married in the first place is unrelated to the opposition opinion.

The preacher I heard this morning was undoubtedly of the contentious variety and undoubtedly receives criticism from both other christians and from non-christians. The fact that he is criticized does not make him right. Of course, he was using the "everybody is out to get us" ploy as a psychological tool to stir a feeling of solidarity, and from a rhetorical standpoint or from a perspective of group dynamics, it represents something interesting.

That does nothing to improve the argument itself, though. Moreover, I have generalized from that sermon a type of argument that can be made in relation to many groups that is logically incorrect. Can you really not recognize that the conclusion of "We are right" does not follow from the premise of "Everyone says we are wrong?"

ExMinister · 21st November 2009, 02:09 PM

Interesting.

I am new to studying logical fallacies (working on a book called Informal Logic right now, which I just started).

But could this be the fallacy of circular reasoning?

The argument seems to be:

We are doing God's work (doing something right).
Satan is only against people who are doing God's work (or doing something right).
Satan is against us.
Therefore, we are doing God's work (doing something right).

JWideman · 21st November 2009, 02:23 PM

I think the sentiment has been misstated. It's not "I am right because everyone says I'm wrong." It's "I am right because everyone is persecuting me."
I'm not sure if that's a logical fallacy so much as a purely irrational statement.

TimCallahan · 21st November 2009, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by m_huber

I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name?

Rather than it being a fallacy, I see it as a supreme irony, in that, along with people being against them, Satan and his demons are as well, acording to this type of reasoning. For eample, the reason we unbelievers, don't experience demonic attack is that Satan is quite hapy with us in our unsaved state. So, the logic of this argument goes, if you are truly among the saved, you will be on Satan's hit list.

The irony in all this is that being among the saved, you are supposed to experience the "poiece of God, that bpasses all understanding."

grayman · 21st November 2009, 03:06 PM

Perhaps this listing of fallacies will help.

m_huber · 21st November 2009, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by JWideman

I think the sentiment has been misstated. It's not "I am right because everyone says I'm wrong." It's "I am right because everyone is persecuting me."
I'm not sure if that's a logical fallacy so much as a purely irrational statement.

You are correct, I have made a different generalization by making persecution = disagreement.

Originally Posted by ExMinister

Interesting.
But could this be the fallacy of circular reasoning?

The argument seems to be:

We are doing God's work (doing something right).
Satan is only against people who are doing God's work (or doing something right).
Satan is against us.
Therefore, we are doing God's work (doing something right).

The way you have it stated, yes. According to wiki, this would fall under "begging the question," as the conclusion is a premise.

The way I have it stated above seems to be cum hoc ergo propter hoc because while there may be a correlation, being right and being told they are wrong could both be true, but are not causally linked.

Or it could be a non sequitor, as "they say Not A, therefore A" is clearly a conclusion that does not follow from the premise.

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Rather than it being a fallacy, I see it as a supreme irony, in that, along with people being against them, Satan and his demons are as well, acording to this type of reasoning. For eample, the reason we unbelievers, don't experience demonic attack is that Satan is quite hapy with us in our unsaved state. So, the logic of this argument goes, if you are truly among the saved, you will be on Satan's hit list.

The irony in all this is that being among the saved, you are supposed to experience the "poiece of God, that bpasses all understanding."

It is humorous, no matter how it is logically broken down. There were other amusing aspects to the sermon as well, such as when the preacher said, "I don't know why we're trying to teach intelligent design in schools, it's Creation!" and various discussions of how this preacher was persecuted and how he was like Paul in that he wasn't being seduced by the things of the world, when he was broadcasting over the radio and telling stories about his appearances on other people's shows and encouraging his congregation to buy books.

Ladewig · 21st November 2009, 03:54 PM

Reverse appeal to popularity?

RandFan · 21st November 2009, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Why is that a fallacy? When all anybody ever does is tell you (general not specific) is no matter what you do or say you're wrong period, even in situations when you are agreeing with the group (such as if the group you're with says 2 plus 2 is 4 and when you repeat it they say you're wrong). Under these conditions there's only thing you can do, and that is go your own way. Saying anything else means that you have no choice but to agree with the group, even when the entire group is telling you that no matter what you're wrong.

2+2=4 is correct regardless of opinion. For that reason it is a fallacy. If everyone disagreed it would still be true. If everyone agreed it would sitll be true. Public opinion is not relevant.

dv82matt · 21st November 2009, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by m_huber

I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name?

It may not fit neatly into a single named fallacy but it seems somewhat like "The Galileo gambit" (where the persecution of Galileo is taken as evidence that he was right) and maybe "Guilt by association" since the forces that oppose the believer are presumed to be in some way associated with Satan.

xXMoshtradamusXx · 21st November 2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by JWideman

I think the sentiment has been misstated. It's not "I am right because everyone says I'm wrong." It's "I am right because everyone is persecuting me."
I'm not sure if that's a logical fallacy so much as a purely irrational statement.

Once again. Newbie's opinion (by me not you!)
I would declare it "Correct by 'Persecution'"
Christians have a persecution complex. If they're being persecuted they're obviously doing God's work because Jesus too was persecuted.
It's the kind of logic that really leads to the more appalled rational people are the crazier they get because they believe they're making progress.
Like a self fulfilling prophecy.

Cynic · 21st November 2009, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by ExMinister

We are doing God's work (doing something right).
Satan is only against people who are doing God's work (or doing something right).
Satan is against us.
Therefore, we are doing God's work (doing something right).

Well, that's only circular because of how you've written it.

They would put it this way:

Satan only opposes those doing god's work.
Satan opposes us.
------------------------------------------
Therefore, we are doing god's work.

That logic is perfectly valid. The problem is with all the assumption that's going into the premises. The circular bit is that they're assuming any opposition must be from satan because only satan would oppose god's work.

It's sort of a hidden premise, and ends up feeling circular. Not sure what the name is either.

RandFan · 21st November 2009, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Cynic

Satan only opposes those doing god's work.
Satan opposes us.
------------------------------------------
Therefore, we are doing god's work.

That logic is perfectly valid.

It begs the question.

Skeptic Ginger · 21st November 2009, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by m_huber

I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name?

It's not a logical fallacy. Rather, you are describing the viral meme that is the nature of theistic indoctrination. Another version of this theme is the claim, God wants you to believe by faith. The fact the evidence supports the conclusion the Bible is a work of mostly fiction is a 'test' of your faith.

Using this tactic, the religion meme is self preserving.

Eyeron · 21st November 2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

2+2=4 is correct regardless of opinion.

Yes, it is completely agreed. But in this situation you've got to choose what is more appropriate for you (general, not specific) if it is more important to be correct, or if it is more important to fit in and do what is expected.

After all, what good is it to be correct if there is no one willing to listen to you and all you are is a social pariah because you aren't doing what is expected of you? And in this case, what is expected of you is to fit in and be like everybody else, even if all they want to do is tell you you're wrong.

Achán hiNidráne · 21st November 2009, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Yes, it is completely agreed. But in this situation you've got to choose what is more appropriate for you (general, not specific) if it is more important to be correct, or if it is more important to fit in and do what is expected.

After all, what good is it to be correct if there is no one willing to listen to you and all you are is a social pariah because you aren't doing what is expected of you? And in this case, what is expected of you is to fit in and be like everybody else, even if all they want to do is tell you you're wrong.

Wow! You are a sniveling coward, aren't you? You have nothing that you'd be willing to stand for in the face of the majority? Nothing at all?

Or are YOUR beliefs the only ones worth fighting for?

I seem to remember that once upon a time, African-Americans were social pariahs and the white majority made very unpleasant for them until they started to organize and stand up for themselves. Ditto every other group in American society the historically white, male, Christian majority has--and in some cases, continues to--grind under their heel. I suppose this was OK too? Majority rules?

If so then in your world and might makes right and whoever has the guns and gold gets to make the rules. Everyone else should just shut up or die. That's not the world I would live in.

RandFan · 21st November 2009, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Yes, it is completely agreed. But in this situation you've got to choose what is more appropriate for you (general, not specific) if it is more important to be correct, or if it is more important to fit in and do what is expected.

After all, what good is it to be correct if there is no one willing to listen to you and all you are is a social pariah because you aren't doing what is expected of you? And in this case, what is expected of you is to fit in and be like everybody else, even if all they want to do is tell you you're wrong.

I don't understand your point. I don't know how to answer the question. I like to fit in and sometimes I bit my lip in the presense of people who believe contrary to me. Sometimes I speak out and question group think. Could you give me an idea of where you are going with the point?

I should point out that the thread is about fallacy. You are off topic.

qayak · 21st November 2009, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by m_huber

I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name?

It is a plead to authority fallacy. In this case, the authority is supposedly satan.

qayak · 21st November 2009, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

It's not a logical fallacy. Rather, you are describing the viral meme that is the nature of theistic indoctrination. Another version of this theme is the claim, God wants you to believe by faith. The fact the evidence supports the conclusion the Bible is a work of mostly fiction is a 'test' of your faith.

Using this tactic, the religion meme is self preserving.

No, it is a fallacy. Satan can lie, so he may just argue with you to make you THINK he is against you when really he is for what you are doing.

I hope the preacher puts a little more effort into his moral view than that.

Beerina · 21st November 2009, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by m_huber

I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name?

That presumes Satan is against them.

In any case, theologically, they'd have to believe that Satan Always Does Evil, which is not in accordance with efficiently thwarting God's plan, of course, any more than it's in accordance with efficiently trashing any plan.

It's based on the belief that Satan can't do anything good, and must always do evil. Satan thus, for example, must always lie because telling the truth is good.

This is quite a silly and childlike viewpoint, even in the context of religious belief.

I recall one TV preacher, forget the name, but he's one of the big ones, telling a story about how he got off a plane and had to walk on the tarmac a long way, with his bum knee hurting him. Apparently Satan had told him he'd have this long, hurtful walk because, you know, the guy talks to Satan just as he does to Jesus and God.

Anyway, he's a good storyteller, so he gets off the plane, looks ahead at the long, painful march ahead of him, and tells the audience, "...and that's the only time Satan ever told the truth."

Hahaha, huge laugh from the audience. Of course, he then corrects himself, because Satan can never tell the truth and says the walk was actually longer than that.

So, ya. Believing everyone is either for you or against you is a fallacy because the vast majority just don't give a rat's ass about you.

But I don't know if this specific issue is a fallacy per se. It's a logical conclusion to a highly idiotic premise: That Satan always does evil and seeks to hamper God and God's little helpers, always, everywhere.

"Restating the premise" is what I'll say. It grants no additional information whatsoever. Why? Because if people were telling him "You're right!" instead of "You're wrong!", he reaches the same conclusion: that he's on the right path.

Eyeron · 21st November 2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Could you give me an idea of where you are going with the point?

There was something that just set up red flags with that statement of "I know I'm right because everybody tells me I'm wrong" being a fallacy. Because the only other answer that I can see to that statement is that because it is a fallacy, then that means you are incorrect and must do what everybody tells you to do. If you are wrong you must acknowledge when everybody tells you you are wrong. Because if something you believe is incorrect then it means you are incorrect and must change your views to suit what everybody is telling you.

In short it seems to be justifying group think, and that you must correct your incorrect views to what the group tells you to change it to.

But reality doesn't often work that way, and in post #5 I was attempting to show how critical thinking sometimes goes against how reality works.

Because if those people were to go by the group think, then that would mean that homosexuals have no right to marriage and indeed should never get married, and if everyone tells you you can't sing then you should give up your dream and not pursue a singing career. Because since it is a fallacy to say "I know that I am right because everybody always tells me I am wrong" is a fallacy, and fallacies always mean that the belief is invalid because it is incorrect. And since the belief is invalid, that means you should not believe it because it cannot be justified, for it being a fallacy.

Sometimes you've got to go with what you know in your heart, regardless of what everybody tells you, and regardless of what critical thinking tells you should do.

RandFan · 21st November 2009, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

There was something that just set up red flags with that statement of "I know I'm right because everybody tells me I'm wrong" being a fallacy. Because the only other answer that I can see to that statement is that because it is a fallacy, then that means you are incorrect and must do what everybody tells you to do.

No.

One can reason fallaciously and still arrive at a correct conclusion. A logically invalid argument only means that we can't trust the argument. It says nothing of the conclusion.

Did you check out the link I gave you? Logic & Fallacies.

Natural medicines are relatively safe and effective.
Aspirin is natural.
Therefore aspirin is relatively safe and effective for reducing pain.

While it's true that aspirin is natural so are many poisons. Therefore our reason is fallacious but our conclusion is still correct.

Quote:

Sometimes you've got to go with what you know in your heart, regardless of what everybody tells you, and regardless of what critical thinking tells you should do.

Intuition is a good thing. We wouldn't survive long without it. However, the ultimate arbiter of what is truth is logic and reason. We didn't land people on the moon by simply trusting our heart. We didn't discover the structure of matter or DNA by trusting our heart.

I recomend that you take some time and read up on the ancient Greeks and how their contributions to objective and critical thinking help lead us to enlightenment and the many wonderful things we have today like computers and modern medicine.

Skeptic Ginger · 21st November 2009, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by qayak

No, it is a fallacy. Satan can lie, so he may just argue with you to make you THINK he is against you when really he is for what you are doing.

I hope the preacher puts a little more effort into his moral view than that.

You have failed to explain your position here. What specifically is the fallacy?

wuschel · 21st November 2009, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by m_huber

In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name?

The: "Aligning Oneself With Hitler And Stalin As Well As An Unspecified Number Of Pedophiles" - fallacy, maybe?

ETA: I'd otherwise go with "non sequitur" - the premise "everyone tells us that we are wrong" does not support the conclusion: "we are right".

qayak · 21st November 2009, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

You have failed to explain your position here. What specifically is the fallacy?

The preacher is claiming that satan is the authority on evil and anything satan dislikes MUST be good. It is an appeal to authority fallacy.

RandFan · 21st November 2009, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by qayak

The preacher is claiming that satan is the authority on evil and anything satan dislikes MUST be good. It is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Week. To qualify as an appeal to authority one must presume that Satan is real. It would only have validity as a hypo, "given that Satan is real...". But then I would have to rule against you. I can't think of a better authority on evil since by definition Satan is an authority on evil. Remember, appeal to authority isn't necessarily fallacious.

Long story short it's a fallacy I wouldn't claim as it is frought with problems.

m_huber · 22nd November 2009, 07:55 AM

I got curious, so I called the radio station. The sermon was given by Donnie Swaggart, Jimmie's son. The title was "Delivered," but I can't find an audio file of it online. His website has some other sermons on it: http://www.donnieswaggart.org/

m_huber · 22nd November 2009, 08:04 AM

So, thus far, we have:
1) It's not a fallacy because it is correct (Eyeron)
2) Immoral majority (a joke, of course, by enigma)
3) Circular reasoning (ExMinister, Beerina)
4) It's not a fallacy, just an incorrect statement (JWideman, TimCallahan, Cynic, skeptigirl)
5) Non sequitor (me, wuschel)
6) Appeal to authority (Ladewig, qayak)
7) Galileo gambit or guilt by association (dv82matt)
8) Correct by persecution (Moshtradamus)
9) Begging the question (RandFan)

I'm glad to know that there's not a simple answer

Eyeron · 22nd November 2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

the ultimate arbiter of what is truth is logic and reason. We didn't land people on the moon by simply trusting our heart

What an absolute statement. I don't agree that logic and reason is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Because you can come to different conclusions using logic and reason, and this very thread shows that actually in how many different conclusion people came to on the question of "what is this fallacy". Any claim of absolute truth seems to infer that there can be only one truth and everyone must adhere to it. And I personally can't stand claims of absolute truth because the largest context I've ever heard it in was in the context of the Christian religion.And that particular context is that truth only comes from God and that it is absolute and never changing. But like the Star Wars film says, it all depends upon a person's point of view, and even logic and reason can be colored by that point of view and can be subservient to it.

And in regards to your moon statement, we couldn't have gone to the moon without the technical know how to do so, in which case knowledge of technology does require the use of logic. But what drove us to go to the moon was what our hearts motivated us to do.

pnerd · 22nd November 2009, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by m_huber

In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name?

I think it's called a non sequitur argument.
.

RandFan · 22nd November 2009, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

What an absolute statement.

No (see below).

Quote:

I don't agree that logic and reason is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Because you can come to different conclusions using logic and reason, and this very thread shows that actually in how many different conclusion people came to on the question of "what is this fallacy".

Because we are talking about the human element. If you asked a group of mathematicians to perform a number of calculations you may very well get a number of results. That doesn't mean that there is more than one answer.

However, it's very possible to commit more than one fallacy in a single statement.

Quote:

Any claim of absolute truth seems to infer that there can be only one truth and everyone must adhere to it.

Science and philosophy are not about absolute truth. Science and philosophy are not about dogmatic adherence to the truth. You are erecting a straw man here (IOW you are committing a fallacy).

Quote:

And I personally can't stand c;aims of absolute truth...

Again, not the purview of either science or philosophy.

Quote:

But like the Star Wars film says, it all depends upon a eprson's point of view, and even logic and reason can be colored by that point of view and can be subservient to it.

Just because you think you can fly doesn't mean that you can. It's true that our perceptions make it difficult to find the truth but we went to the moon because of in part, those wonderful ancient Greek Philosophers realized that perceptions make it difficult to find the truth. I would recommend that you learn about their contributions to logic and reason and find out how it was possible to fly to the moon. We didn't do it by allowing empirical facts to be colored by perception.

Quote:

But what drove us to go to the moon was what our hearts motivated us to do.

Which says nothing of finding truth. Our hearts might drive us to find truth but we have to use logic and reason to increase the likelihood that we find it.

UndercoverElephant · 22nd November 2009, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by m_huber

You are correct, I have made a different generalization by making persecution = disagreement.

The way you have it stated, yes. According to wiki, this would fall under "begging the question," as the conclusion is a premise.

The way I have it stated above seems to be cum hoc ergo propter hoc because while there may be a correlation, being right and being told they are wrong could both be true, but are not causally linked.

Or it could be a non sequitor, as "they say Not A, therefore A" is clearly a conclusion that does not follow from the premise.

It's not a non-sequitor, because their conclusion is actually perfectly reasonable given their premises. Those premises include "Satan exists and is influencing the behaviour of bad Christians non-Christians." The argument should be rejected by atheists and anyone else who doesn't believe in Satan before they even get to the point of analysing the logic.

qayak · 22nd November 2009, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Week. To qualify as an appeal to authority one must presume that Satan is real. It would only have validity as a hypo, "given that Satan is real...".

To the person [preacher] making the claim, satan is very real. Doesn't matter if I think he is or not as I am not making the argument.

Quote:

But then I would have to rule against you. I can't think of a better authority on evil since by definition Satan is an authority on evil. Remember, appeal to authority isn't necessarily fallacious.

It doesn't matter how much of an authority someone is. The only thing that matters is whether they are correct. The problem occurs in the assumption that the authority MUST be right without examining the actual evidence, ie.- "Black holes exist because Stephen Hawkins says they do."

In this case, the preacher states that anything satan is against, is good and, therefore, anything he is for, is bad. So, by the preacher's reasoning, if you killed someone and satan said, "Hey! That isn't right!" you would be correct in continuing to kill people. However, satan is only telling you it is wrong because he knows that lying will cause you to do the most evil.

And all of this has happened without anyone, anywhere examining the evidence as to whether it is actually right, or wrong, to kill that person under those conditions.

qayak · 22nd November 2009, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by m_huber

So, thus far, we have:
1) It's not a fallacy because it is correct (Eyeron)
2) Immoral majority (a joke, of course, by enigma)
3) Circular reasoning (ExMinister, Beerina)
4) It's not a fallacy, just an incorrect statement (JWideman, TimCallahan, Cynic, skeptigirl)
5) Non sequitor (me, wuschel)
6) Appeal to authority (Ladewig, qayak)
7) Galileo gambit or guilt by association (dv82matt)
8) Correct by persecution (Moshtradamus)
9) Begging the question (RandFan)

I'm glad to know that there's not a simple answer

You forgot:

10) All of the above
11) None of the above
12) All of the above except _, _, _, . . .

Logic is such an easy subject, isn't it?

Ladewig · 22nd November 2009, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by m_huber

6) Appeal to authority (Ladewig, qayak)

I thought appeal to authority and appeal to popularity were different enough to not be interchangeable.

21st November 2009, 12:13 PM	#1
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	What is the name of this logical fallacy? I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name?
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	__________________ "A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." -- Bertrand Russell on problems with traditional educational methods.

21st November 2009, 12:43 PM	#2
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Why is that a fallacy? When all anybody ever does is tell you (general not specific) is no matter what you do or say you're wrong period, even in situations when you are agreeing with the group (such as if the group you're with says 2 plus 2 is 4 and when you repeat it they say you're wrong). Under these conditions there's only thing you can do, and that is go your own way. Saying anything else means that you have no choice but to agree with the group, even when the entire group is telling you that no matter what you're wrong.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

21st November 2009, 01:04 PM	#3
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	Originally Posted by Eyeron Why is that a fallacy? When all anybody ever does is tell you (general not specific) is no matter what you do or say you're wrong period, even in situations when you are agreeing with the group (such as if the group you're with says 2 plus 2 is 4 and when you repeat it they say you're wrong). Under these conditions there's only thing you can do, and that is go your own way. Saying anything else means that you have no choice but to agree with the group, even when the entire group is telling you that no matter what you're wrong. This seems to be the same sort of paranoia I was hearing this morning. I don't know exactly how you're defining the various groups here, but it is certainly quite an extrapolation to go from the complete lack of identification that I gave in the OP and saying that the disagreeing group is universally declaring that the first group is wrong. Regardless, even if you are told by a particular group, or even by the entire population of the world who is not in your group, that you are incorrect, that does not in itself make you correct or incorrect. In a way you are correct, in that opinions do not shape reality. The fallacy is "We know we are right BECAUSE everyone tells us we are wrong." To give this a non-religious analogue, how about "I know I am a good basketball player because everyone tells me I'm bad," or "I know the world is flat because everyone tells me that it's round." If the argument is "I know I am a good basketball player because I have hit 250 consecutive free throws without missing," you might have a point, but one made from relevant evidence. The argument I have stated is clearly flawed. The conclusion does not follow from the premise: Everyone tells me that I am wrong therefore I am right. I want to know if there's a name for this.
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	__________________ "A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." -- Bertrand Russell on problems with traditional educational methods. Last edited by m_huber; 21st November 2009 at 01:06 PM.

21st November 2009, 01:48 PM	#7
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	Originally Posted by Eyeron Here's another argument that fits. Homosexuals believe they have a right to marriage. Everybody tells them they don't. So that only entrenches their beliefs that they're right. Eventually over time they are able to argue for their position and it becomes more acceptable to allow homosexuals to be married. OR.... A person is told all the time that they can't sing. Everybody tells them that. Over time he becomes a singer and a famous one with millions of fan across the country and the world. All because that he or she believed that they are right because everybody tells me so. Neither of those examples addresses or negates the logical fallacy. In the second, if the singer persists using the logic that "everyone told me I am a bad singer, therefore I must be a good one," then he got to a good spot using bad logic. If, instead, he said, "Everyone tells me I'm bad, so I must practice hard to become good," then some semblance of logic is being used. In the first example (I'm not sure why you chose such a politically charged one), homosexuals generally operate from an argument along the lines of, "We have a stable, lifelong monogamous relationship, therefore we should have the benefits afforded to analogous heterosexual couples," which is quite different than the logical progression you outlined. It isn't necessarily bad for a group to be in, "Everyone is out to get us" mode. There may actually be a situation where this is the case. If a homosexual group operates on the argument of, "Everyone has told us that we can't get married, so clearly we are doing a good thing and need to keep doing it," they would have a terrible argument. What I hear more often from gay rights groups is along the lines of "Everyone has told us that we can't get married, so we need to change that." The reasoning for why they think they should be married in the first place is unrelated to the opposition opinion. The preacher I heard this morning was undoubtedly of the contentious variety and undoubtedly receives criticism from both other christians and from non-christians. The fact that he is criticized does not make him right. Of course, he was using the "everybody is out to get us" ploy as a psychological tool to stir a feeling of solidarity, and from a rhetorical standpoint or from a perspective of group dynamics, it represents something interesting. That does nothing to improve the argument itself, though. Moreover, I have generalized from that sermon a type of argument that can be made in relation to many groups that is logically incorrect. Can you really not recognize that the conclusion of "We are right" does not follow from the premise of "Everyone says we are wrong?"
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	__________________ "A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." -- Bertrand Russell on problems with traditional educational methods.

21st November 2009, 02:09 PM	#8
ExMinister RSL Acolyte Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,749	Interesting. I am new to studying logical fallacies (working on a book called Informal Logic right now, which I just started). But could this be the fallacy of circular reasoning? The argument seems to be: We are doing God's work (doing something right). Satan is only against people who are doing God's work (or doing something right). Satan is against us. Therefore, we are doing God's work (doing something right).
ExMinister RSL Acolyte Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,749	__________________ www.stopsylvia.com

21st November 2009, 01:08 PM	#4
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by m_huber I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name? Correctness by immoral majority

21st November 2009, 01:13 PM	#5
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Here's another argument that fits. Homosexuals believe they have a right to marriage. Everybody tells them they don't. So that only entrenches their beliefs that they're right. Eventually over time they are able to argue for their position and it becomes more acceptable to allow homosexuals to be married. OR.... A person is told all the time that they can't sing. Everybody tells them that. Over time he becomes a singer and a famous one with millions of fan across the country and the world. All because that he or she believed that they are right because everybody tells me so.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

21st November 2009, 01:29 PM	#6
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by Eyeron A person is told all the time that they can't sing. Everybody tells them that. Over time he becomes a singer and a famous one with millions of fan across the country and the world. All because that he or she believed that they are right because everybody tells me so. Isn't that the life story of Celine Dion? Her childhood friends were right

21st November 2009, 02:23 PM	#9
JWideman Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,241	I think the sentiment has been misstated. It's not "I am right because everyone says I'm wrong." It's "I am right because everyone is persecuting me." I'm not sure if that's a logical fallacy so much as a purely irrational statement.

21st November 2009, 02:25 PM	#10
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,133	Originally Posted by m_huber I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name? Rather than it being a fallacy, I see it as a supreme irony, in that, along with people being against them, Satan and his demons are as well, acording to this type of reasoning. For eample, the reason we unbelievers, don't experience demonic attack is that Satan is quite hapy with us in our unsaved state. So, the logic of this argument goes, if you are truly among the saved, you will be on Satan's hit list. The irony in all this is that being among the saved, you are supposed to experience the "poiece of God, that bpasses all understanding."
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,133

21st November 2009, 03:06 PM	#11
grayman Happy-go-lucky Heretic Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Casa del Whacko Posts: 6,142	Perhaps this listing of fallacies will help.
	__________________ Stupidity is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. - Wiley All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw God is evil. As soon as you accept that, it all makes sense. - Sledge

21st November 2009, 03:44 PM	#12
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	Originally Posted by JWideman I think the sentiment has been misstated. It's not "I am right because everyone says I'm wrong." It's "I am right because everyone is persecuting me." I'm not sure if that's a logical fallacy so much as a purely irrational statement. You are correct, I have made a different generalization by making persecution = disagreement. Originally Posted by ExMinister Interesting. But could this be the fallacy of circular reasoning? The argument seems to be: We are doing God's work (doing something right). Satan is only against people who are doing God's work (or doing something right). Satan is against us. Therefore, we are doing God's work (doing something right). The way you have it stated, yes. According to wiki, this would fall under "begging the question," as the conclusion is a premise. The way I have it stated above seems to be cum hoc ergo propter hoc because while there may be a correlation, being right and being told they are wrong could both be true, but are not causally linked. Or it could be a non sequitor, as "they say Not A, therefore A" is clearly a conclusion that does not follow from the premise. Originally Posted by TimCallahan Rather than it being a fallacy, I see it as a supreme irony, in that, along with people being against them, Satan and his demons are as well, acording to this type of reasoning. For eample, the reason we unbelievers, don't experience demonic attack is that Satan is quite hapy with us in our unsaved state. So, the logic of this argument goes, if you are truly among the saved, you will be on Satan's hit list. The irony in all this is that being among the saved, you are supposed to experience the "poiece of God, that bpasses all understanding." It is humorous, no matter how it is logically broken down. There were other amusing aspects to the sermon as well, such as when the preacher said, "I don't know why we're trying to teach intelligent design in schools, it's Creation!" and various discussions of how this preacher was persecuted and how he was like Paul in that he wasn't being seduced by the things of the world, when he was broadcasting over the radio and telling stories about his appearances on other people's shows and encouraging his congregation to buy books.
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	__________________ "A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." -- Bertrand Russell on problems with traditional educational methods.

21st November 2009, 03:54 PM	#13
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	Reverse appeal to popularity?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

21st November 2009, 04:06 PM	#14
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,376	Originally Posted by Eyeron Why is that a fallacy? When all anybody ever does is tell you (general not specific) is no matter what you do or say you're wrong period, even in situations when you are agreeing with the group (such as if the group you're with says 2 plus 2 is 4 and when you repeat it they say you're wrong). Under these conditions there's only thing you can do, and that is go your own way. Saying anything else means that you have no choice but to agree with the group, even when the entire group is telling you that no matter what you're wrong. 2+2=4 is correct regardless of opinion. For that reason it is a fallacy. If everyone disagreed it would still be true. If everyone agreed it would sitll be true. Public opinion is not relevant.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

21st November 2009, 04:24 PM	#15
dv82matt Scholar Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 104	Originally Posted by m_huber I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name? It may not fit neatly into a single named fallacy but it seems somewhat like "The Galileo gambit" (where the persecution of Galileo is taken as evidence that he was right) and maybe "Guilt by association" since the forces that oppose the believer are presumed to be in some way associated with Satan.
dv82matt Scholar Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 104

21st November 2009, 04:31 PM	#16
xXMoshtradamusXx Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: BFE, KY Posts: 186	Originally Posted by JWideman I think the sentiment has been misstated. It's not "I am right because everyone says I'm wrong." It's "I am right because everyone is persecuting me." I'm not sure if that's a logical fallacy so much as a purely irrational statement. Once again. Newbie's opinion (by me not you!) I would declare it "Correct by 'Persecution'" Christians have a persecution complex. If they're being persecuted they're obviously doing God's work because Jesus too was persecuted. It's the kind of logic that really leads to the more appalled rational people are the crazier they get because they believe they're making progress. Like a self fulfilling prophecy.
	__________________ "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."-Gregory House M.D. xXMoshtradamusXx

21st November 2009, 04:52 PM	#17
Cynic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1,331	Originally Posted by ExMinister We are doing God's work (doing something right). Satan is only against people who are doing God's work (or doing something right). Satan is against us. Therefore, we are doing God's work (doing something right). Well, that's only circular because of how you've written it. They would put it this way: Satan only opposes those doing god's work. Satan opposes us. ------------------------------------------ Therefore, we are doing god's work. That logic is perfectly valid. The problem is with all the assumption that's going into the premises. The circular bit is that they're assuming any opposition must be from satan because only satan would oppose god's work. It's sort of a hidden premise, and ends up feeling circular. Not sure what the name is either.
	__________________ The slackjaw gaze of true profanity feels more like surrender than defeat -- if culture is the curse of the thinking class. -- Neil Peart

21st November 2009, 05:48 PM	#18
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,376	Originally Posted by Cynic Satan only opposes those doing god's work. Satan opposes us. ------------------------------------------ Therefore, we are doing god's work. That logic is perfectly valid. It begs the question.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 21st November 2009 at 05:52 PM.

21st November 2009, 06:31 PM	#19
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,624	Originally Posted by m_huber I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name? It's not a logical fallacy. Rather, you are describing the viral meme that is the nature of theistic indoctrination. Another version of this theme is the claim, God wants you to believe by faith. The fact the evidence supports the conclusion the Bible is a work of mostly fiction is a 'test' of your faith. Using this tactic, the religion meme is self preserving.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

21st November 2009, 06:32 PM	#20
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Quote: 2+2=4 is correct regardless of opinion. Yes, it is completely agreed. But in this situation you've got to choose what is more appropriate for you (general, not specific) if it is more important to be correct, or if it is more important to fit in and do what is expected. After all, what good is it to be correct if there is no one willing to listen to you and all you are is a social pariah because you aren't doing what is expected of you? And in this case, what is expected of you is to fit in and be like everybody else, even if all they want to do is tell you you're wrong.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

21st November 2009, 06:46 PM	#21
Achán hiNidráne Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muskego, WI. Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Eyeron Yes, it is completely agreed. But in this situation you've got to choose what is more appropriate for you (general, not specific) if it is more important to be correct, or if it is more important to fit in and do what is expected. After all, what good is it to be correct if there is no one willing to listen to you and all you are is a social pariah because you aren't doing what is expected of you? And in this case, what is expected of you is to fit in and be like everybody else, even if all they want to do is tell you you're wrong. Wow! You are a sniveling coward, aren't you? You have nothing that you'd be willing to stand for in the face of the majority? Nothing at all? Or are YOUR beliefs the only ones worth fighting for? I seem to remember that once upon a time, African-Americans were social pariahs and the white majority made very unpleasant for them until they started to organize and stand up for themselves. Ditto every other group in American society the historically white, male, Christian majority has--and in some cases, continues to--grind under their heel. I suppose this was OK too? Majority rules? If so then in your world and might makes right and whoever has the guns and gold gets to make the rules. Everyone else should just shut up or die. That's not the world I would live in.
	__________________ "As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold" Last edited by Achán hiNidráne; 21st November 2009 at 06:59 PM.

21st November 2009, 06:51 PM	#22
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,376	Originally Posted by Eyeron Yes, it is completely agreed. But in this situation you've got to choose what is more appropriate for you (general, not specific) if it is more important to be correct, or if it is more important to fit in and do what is expected. After all, what good is it to be correct if there is no one willing to listen to you and all you are is a social pariah because you aren't doing what is expected of you? And in this case, what is expected of you is to fit in and be like everybody else, even if all they want to do is tell you you're wrong. I don't understand your point. I don't know how to answer the question. I like to fit in and sometimes I bit my lip in the presense of people who believe contrary to me. Sometimes I speak out and question group think. Could you give me an idea of where you are going with the point? I should point out that the thread is about fallacy. You are off topic.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 21st November 2009 at 06:52 PM.

21st November 2009, 07:05 PM	#23
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	Originally Posted by m_huber I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name? It is a plead to authority fallacy. In this case, the authority is supposedly satan.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

21st November 2009, 07:06 PM	#24
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	Originally Posted by skeptigirl It's not a logical fallacy. Rather, you are describing the viral meme that is the nature of theistic indoctrination. Another version of this theme is the claim, God wants you to believe by faith. The fact the evidence supports the conclusion the Bible is a work of mostly fiction is a 'test' of your faith. Using this tactic, the religion meme is self preserving. No, it is a fallacy. Satan can lie, so he may just argue with you to make you THINK he is against you when really he is for what you are doing. I hope the preacher puts a little more effort into his moral view than that.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

21st November 2009, 07:14 PM	#25
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by m_huber I was listening to a very passionate preacher this morning, and as he was admonishing his congregation, he told them that one way they can know that they are doing god's work is because satan would only be against them if they were doing something right. In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name? That presumes Satan is against them. In any case, theologically, they'd have to believe that Satan Always Does Evil, which is not in accordance with efficiently thwarting God's plan, of course, any more than it's in accordance with efficiently trashing any plan. It's based on the belief that Satan can't do anything good, and must always do evil. Satan thus, for example, must always lie because telling the truth is good. This is quite a silly and childlike viewpoint, even in the context of religious belief. I recall one TV preacher, forget the name, but he's one of the big ones, telling a story about how he got off a plane and had to walk on the tarmac a long way, with his bum knee hurting him. Apparently Satan had told him he'd have this long, hurtful walk because, you know, the guy talks to Satan just as he does to Jesus and God. Anyway, he's a good storyteller, so he gets off the plane, looks ahead at the long, painful march ahead of him, and tells the audience, "...and that's the only time Satan ever told the truth." Hahaha, huge laugh from the audience. Of course, he then corrects himself, because Satan can never tell the truth and says the walk was actually longer than that. So, ya. Believing everyone is either for you or against you is a fallacy because the vast majority just don't give a rat's ass about you. But I don't know if this specific issue is a fallacy per se. *It's a logical* conclusion to a highly idiotic premise**: That Satan always does evil and seeks to hamper God and God's little helpers, always, everywhere. "Restating the premise" is what I'll say. It grants no additional information whatsoever. Why? Because if people were telling him "You're right!" instead of "You're wrong!", he reaches the same conclusion: that he's on the right path.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

21st November 2009, 07:22 PM	#26
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Quote: Could you give me an idea of where you are going with the point? There was something that just set up red flags with that statement of "I know I'm right because everybody tells me I'm wrong" being a fallacy. Because the only other answer that I can see to that statement is that because it is a fallacy, then that means you are incorrect and must do what everybody tells you to do. If you are wrong you must acknowledge when everybody tells you you are wrong. Because if something you believe is incorrect then it means you are incorrect and must change your views to suit what everybody is telling you. In short it seems to be justifying group think, and that you must correct your incorrect views to what the group tells you to change it to. But reality doesn't often work that way, and in post #5 I was attempting to show how critical thinking sometimes goes against how reality works. Because if those people were to go by the group think, then that would mean that homosexuals have no right to marriage and indeed should never get married, and if everyone tells you you can't sing then you should give up your dream and not pursue a singing career. Because since it is a fallacy to say "I know that I am right because everybody always tells me I am wrong" is a fallacy, and fallacies always mean that the belief is invalid because it is incorrect. And since the belief is invalid, that means you should not believe it because it cannot be justified, for it being a fallacy. Sometimes you've got to go with what you know in your heart, regardless of what everybody tells you, and regardless of what critical thinking tells you should do.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Last edited by Eyeron; 21st November 2009 at 07:32 PM.

21st November 2009, 09:51 PM	#27
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,376	Originally Posted by Eyeron There was something that just set up red flags with that statement of "I know I'm right because everybody tells me I'm wrong" being a fallacy. Because the only other answer that I can see to that statement is that because it is a fallacy, then that means you are incorrect and must do what everybody tells you to do. No. One can reason fallaciously and still arrive at a correct conclusion. A logically invalid argument only means that we can't trust the argument. It says nothing of the conclusion. Did you check out the link I gave you? Logic & Fallacies. Natural medicines are relatively safe and effective. Aspirin is natural. Therefore aspirin is relatively safe and effective for reducing pain. While it's true that aspirin is natural so are many poisons. Therefore our reason is fallacious but our conclusion is still correct. Quote: Sometimes you've got to go with what you know in your heart, regardless of what everybody tells you, and regardless of what critical thinking tells you should do. Intuition is a good thing. We wouldn't survive long without it. However, the ultimate arbiter of what is truth is logic and reason. We didn't land people on the moon by simply trusting our heart. We didn't discover the structure of matter or DNA by trusting our heart. I recomend that you take some time and read up on the ancient Greeks and how their contributions to objective and critical thinking help lead us to enlightenment and the many wonderful things we have today like computers and modern medicine.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 21st November 2009 at 09:55 PM.

21st November 2009, 10:21 PM	#28
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,624	Originally Posted by qayak No, it is a fallacy. Satan can lie, so he may just argue with you to make you THINK he is against you when really he is for what you are doing. I hope the preacher puts a little more effort into his moral view than that. You have failed to explain your position here. What specifically is the fallacy?
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

21st November 2009, 10:33 PM	#29
wuschel Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 384	Originally Posted by m_huber In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name? The: "Aligning Oneself With Hitler And Stalin As Well As An Unspecified Number Of Pedophiles" - fallacy, maybe? ETA: I'd otherwise go with "non sequitur" - the premise "everyone tells us that we are wrong" does not support the conclusion: "we are right".
wuschel Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 384	Last edited by wuschel; 21st November 2009 at 10:37 PM.

21st November 2009, 10:57 PM	#30
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	Originally Posted by skeptigirl You have failed to explain your position here. What specifically is the fallacy? The preacher is claiming that satan is the authority on evil and anything satan dislikes MUST be good. It is an appeal to authority fallacy.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,714	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

21st November 2009, 11:06 PM	#31
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,376	Originally Posted by qayak The preacher is claiming that satan is the authority on evil and anything satan dislikes MUST be good. It is an appeal to authority fallacy. Week. To qualify as an appeal to authority one must presume that Satan is real. It would only have validity as a hypo, "given that Satan is real...". But then I would have to rule against you. I can't think of a better authority on evil since by definition Satan is an authority on evil. Remember, appeal to authority isn't necessarily fallacious. Long story short it's a fallacy I wouldn't claim as it is frought with problems.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd November 2009, 07:55 AM	#32
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	I got curious, so I called the radio station. The sermon was given by Donnie Swaggart, Jimmie's son. The title was "Delivered," but I can't find an audio file of it online. His website has some other sermons on it: http://www.donnieswaggart.org/
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	__________________ "A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." -- Bertrand Russell on problems with traditional educational methods.

22nd November 2009, 08:04 AM	#33
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	So, thus far, we have: 1) It's not a fallacy because it is correct (Eyeron) 2) Immoral majority (a joke, of course, by enigma) 3) Circular reasoning (ExMinister, Beerina) 4) It's not a fallacy, just an incorrect statement (JWideman, TimCallahan, Cynic, skeptigirl) 5) Non sequitor (me, wuschel) 6) Appeal to authority (Ladewig, qayak) 7) Galileo gambit or guilt by association (dv82matt) 8) Correct by persecution (Moshtradamus) 9) Begging the question (RandFan) I'm glad to know that there's not a simple answer
m_huber Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 828	__________________ "A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit." -- Bertrand Russell on problems with traditional educational methods.

22nd November 2009, 09:02 AM	#34
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Quote: the ultimate arbiter of what is truth is logic and reason. We didn't land people on the moon by simply trusting our heart What an absolute statement. I don't agree that logic and reason is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Because you can come to different conclusions using logic and reason, and this very thread shows that actually in how many different conclusion people came to on the question of "what is this fallacy". Any claim of absolute truth seems to infer that there can be only one truth and everyone must adhere to it. And I personally can't stand claims of absolute truth because the largest context I've ever heard it in was in the context of the Christian religion.And that particular context is that truth only comes from God and that it is absolute and never changing. But like the Star Wars film says, it all depends upon a person's point of view, and even logic and reason can be colored by that point of view and can be subservient to it. And in regards to your moon statement, we couldn't have gone to the moon without the technical know how to do so, in which case knowledge of technology does require the use of logic. But what drove us to go to the moon was what our hearts motivated us to do.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Last edited by Eyeron; 22nd November 2009 at 09:24 AM.

22nd November 2009, 09:22 AM	#35
pnerd Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 167	Originally Posted by m_huber In other words, "I know we are right because everyone tells us that we are wrong." Does that sort of fallacy have a name? I think it's called a non sequitur argument. .
pnerd Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 167