Trivial Thought God's Antithesis: Revisited

In one of my earlier posts, I attempted to determine God's antithesis, the direct opposite of the Christian God. What could possibly be the polar opposite of God in every aspect?  If you read the blog, you will see that I didn't get very far.  I did root out the problem, however: I was being too specific.

I was also making another big mistake: I assumed that God actually had an antithesis.  I have since found out that He does not.

The Perks of Being Maximally Great:

If God exists, then He must exist as a maximally great being.  To have maximal greatness, you must be superior to all other things in every respect.  You must be supremely perfect.  From this, you must conclude that if God exists, then He must be omniscient, omnipresent, causeless, timeless, and morally perfect.  His existence is therefore also necessary.

There is no antithesis to a maximally great being; only entities that are not maximally great.  That is to say, anything that is not maximally great could be a potential antithesis to a maximally great being.  One could propose that nothing is God's antithesis, but since absolute nothingness cannot logically exist, then it cannot be said to be God's antithesis.  It would be more appropriate to say that not anything is God's antithesis.

Looking back on my previous post on this topic, it was rather embarrassing.

A Logic Bomb: Know Your LOGICAL FALLACIES!

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning.  Think of it as a trick or illusion of thought.  In an argument or debate, a fallacy is an error in a person's argument, which can lead to faulty conclusions.  Despite this, an argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.  I am writing this to spread awareness of the existence of these acts of illogic, as well as to make an appeal to coherency.

Basically, I shall introduce a logical fallacy, describe it, and then provide an example.  There is a website that provides similar services and is an excellent source, which can be found here.

So, without further ado, some fallacies:

The Straw Man Argument

The name of this fallacy is a metaphor.  It is easier to attack a man made of straw than to attack a man made of flesh and bone.  To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a claim or argument by replacing (often called "misrepresenting") it with a superficially similar yet unequal argument.  You then refute your fabricated argument, making it appear that you have refuted the original proposition.  A common example of a Straw Man Argument is when someone refutes a quote taken out of context.

Here's another example:
I make the claim that sunny days are good.  Someone could say that I am wrong, because if all days were sunny, then we would have no rain which would result in famine and death.

This is a Straw Man fallacy because I never said that I felt that all days should be sunny.  All I said was that sunny days are good.  While you can make the argument that not all sunny days are good, the example above misrepresented what I said, and therefore never actually challenged my claim.

The False Cause Fallacy

A False Cause Fallacy occurs when people conflate correlation with causation.  Sometimes, people assume that because two things have a relationship between each other, then one is the cause of the other.  This is not necessarily true.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody deity which was created to demonstrate a false cause fallacy within Christianity: that the high numbers of disasters, famines, and wars in the world is due to the lack of respect and worship toward God.

In the Pastafarian example, a chart is shown graphing the steady rise in temperature over the past few centuries.  The graph also points out that at the same rate the global temperature was increasing, the number of pirates on earth was decreasing.  Thus, pirates cool the world, and global warming is an outright fabrication.

The Regression Fallacy

Similar to False Cause, this fallacy assumes that there is a cause when none exists.  This happens when you have something, such as a golf score, that fluctuates on its own, but you assume that this fluctuation is the result of something else, such as changing your grip on the golf club.

If you have chronic back pain, and see a doctor about the pain, and then your back pain subsides, the Regression Fallacy would be concluding that you therefore benefitted from the doctor's treatment.  While that may have been the case, chronic back pain comes and goes with or without the intervention of a doctor.  Therefore, it is possible that the back pain would have subsided on its own.

The Regression Fallacy gets its name from the fact that natural fluctuations usually regress towards the mean or average out.  This gives the illusion of cause and effect when there is none.

The Appeal to Emotion

This fallacy is commonly found within controversial topics, such as homosexuality and abortion.  It occurs when someone replaces a valid argument with an attempt to get an emotional reaction.  Instead of arguing, you simply play with people emotions.  Guilt Tripping is an example of Appeal to Emotion.

To quote yourlogicalfallacyis.com:

It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position.

For example, let's say you don't want to eat something that has been put in front of you.  I want you to eat it, so I may say, "Think of all the starving children in Africa who are lucky to eat anything at all!"  In saying that, I did not once give you a good reason to eat your food.  All I did was try to make you guilty over a completely unrelated issue.

Some examples of Appealing to Emotion are wishful thinking, guilt tripping, mockery (God is an evil tyrant, so he cannot possible exist!), and flattery.

The Fallacy Fallacy

This is like the Inception of logical fallacies.  Basically, you assume that something is wrong simply because it was poorly argued or a fallacy was committed.  As I mentioned earlier, an argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true, so the fallacy fallacy assumes that if you make a fallacy, your conclusion must be wrong.

Let's say I commit a Bandwagon Fallacy (more on that later).  Say I tell you that we should eat bacon because it is popular.  A fallacy fallacy would be to say that because I made a fallacy while trying to get you to eat more bacon, we should therefore boycott bacon entirely, or eating bacon is therefore wrong.

The Slippery Slope

This fallacy assumes that if one thing happens, then something bad must happen; therefore, the first thing should not happen.  To put it another way, if A happens, then B will happen, followed by C, and so on all the way to Z; because Z is bad, A should not happen, because it leads to Z.

This is a fallacy because it doesn't address the issue at hand.  Instead, it distracts the argument with a bunch of exaggerated hypothetical situations which may or may not ever happen.  Unless you can prove, with statistical data or another form of evidence, that the hypothetical situations will in fact occur, your argument will not be valid.

A common example is one argument against the legalization of homosexual marriage which claims if we allow men to marry men, then eventually people will be wanting to marry their pets or their cars; therefore, we should not let gays marry.  There is no statistical evidence to support that these things would happen, and so this argument is a Slippery Slope fallacy.

Ad Hominem

This is a shortening of the Latin phrase argumentum ad homenim, meaning an argument to the man.  This is what happens when you attack a person's character or personality rather than challenge their argument.

A demonstration:

I made Claim X.
I also have Trait Y.
You say that because I have Trait Y, therefore Claim X is false.

An example:

I made the claim that evolution is not true (Claim X).
I am a college dropout (Trait Y).
You say that because I am a college dropout (I have Trait Y), no one should take my claim (Claim X) seriously.

This is a fallacy because no evidence was provided in favor of or against my original claim.  Also, I'd like to point out that Ad Hom. is different than simply name-calling.

Guilt By Association can sometimes be an example of Ad Hom.

The Nirvana Fallacy

Instead of attacking a person's character, you can criticize their argument for not being perfect.  Often times, problems are very difficult to solve, and not every solution is perfect.  A solution to this fallacy is Occam's Razor, which says that the solution with the fewest assumptions is the preferred solution.  The solution selected by Occam's Razor may not always be the right or correct solution, but it helps eliminate candidates and allows you to start addressing the problem.  At any rate, one should not dismiss an argument simply because it is imperfect.  Disregarding the theory of evolution on the grounds that "it doesn't have all the answers" would be a Nirvana fallacy.

Tu Quoque

This is a Latin phrase meaning "you too".  This fallacy is also called "An Appeal to Hypocrisy", and is similar to Ad Hominem.  You say that because I am a hypocrite, my argument is therefore invalid.  This is common in debates when Person A says that Person B has made a fallacy, but rather than defending his argument, Person B accuses Person A of committing a fallacy earlier in the debate.

"You just committed a logical fallacy!"
"Yeah?  Well, you committed a logical fallacy before I did, so shut up!"

This is a fallacy because it shifts the spotlight from the person who just made a fallacy to the accuser.  It's a dishonest way of covering one's tracks, and is therefore an example of a "red herring" (more on that later).  While a person's hypocrisy should be addressed, this does not mean that the accuse is exempt from defending their own arguments.

Personal Incredulity

The premise of this fallacy is simple: you don't understand something, or you think something is confusing; therefore, it's probably wrong.  I call this fallacy an "Appeal to Ignorance".  To avoid committing this fallacy, refrain from making a judgement on something you do not understand, and address it later after you've done some research.

The Big Bang is a tricky concept to understand, but it would be a Personal Incredulity fallacy to say, "Well, I don't see how nothing can magically explode into everything, so the Big Bang is a load of hooey!"  If you want to debunk the Big Bang Theory, try mentioning that its title is grossly inaccurate instead. (It's not actually a "Big Bang"; it's more of an "Everywhere Stretch".)

Special Pleading

For some reason or another, people don't like being wrong, and some of us will do anything to cover our tracks to avoid that happening.  Special Pleading is a fallacy that happens when you make up excuses for why your claim seems false.

For instance, I can claim that I can jump 10 feet in the air, but when I try to prove my claim, I only jump a foot.  Seeing that my claim has been shown to be false, I will use the Special Pleading fallacy: I say that you need to have faith for my jumping skills to kick in.  Since you did not have faith, that is why I did not jump 10 feet like I said I could.

Special Pleading is very common in faith instances, because we'd rather believe whatever we feel like, rather than changing our views whenever new data is presented.  This is why many people think that science and religion do not mix.

The Loaded Question

A loaded question is a question that is rigged to explode.  It is essentially a Yes/No question with a presumption built into it, so that no matter how the person answers it, they still look guilty of something.  Loaded Questions are often used to catch one's opponent off-guard with a question that assumes they are guilty of something, putting them on the defensive and appearing flustered.

One example would be attempting to throw suspicion on your opponent (and thereby derailing the debate) by asking him, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

If he answers yes, then he implies that he has beat his wife in the past.  If he answers no, then he implies that he is currently abusing his wife.  Either way, he is put in a bad light, and the attention (along with the scrutiny) is taken off of you.

An easy way to diffuse a loaded question is to either point out the presumption built into the question, or to give a non-Yes/No answer.  For example:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Your question makes no sense; I have never beaten my wife.  Please stop including assumptions in your questions.

"I noticed you didn't stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.  Why do you hate our soldiers?"
I have never once stated that I hate soldiers, nor have I ever expressed hatred towards them.  Please stop making blind assumptions.

The Burden of Proof

If you make a claim, you are the one who gets to prove it.  If people challenge your claim, they don't have to make any effort to disprove it.  Since you're talking, you get to back up your words.  End of story.  The Burden of Proof, therefore, rests on the shoulders of the claimant alone.

The Burden of Proof fallacy is often seen in "prove me wrong" scenarios.  Bertrand Russell demonstrated this fallacy by claiming that there was a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars.  At the time of his claim, there were no telescopes strong enough to disprove his claim.  The fallacy is made when someone says that since no one can disprove Russell's claim, it is therefore a valid claim.

It is helpful to remember that scientific methodology operates on evidence, not lack of evidence.  Things are not true because they can't be disproven.  Things are true because they are repeatedly shown to be true.  If you want people to take you seriously in the scientific community, you need to learn how to prove (or disprove) your own claims.  Also, a claims validity is not contingent on its ability to be proven or disproven.

The Ambiguity Fallacy

I hate debates on semantics, because everyone uses their own definitions for certain words in order to manipulate the argument in their favor.  That's what the Ambiguity Fallacy does: it uses a double-meaning of a word to create confusion, to mislead, or to misrepresent the truth.

I see supporters of the Big Bang Theory commit this fallacy all the time.  Many of them say that energy—not God—is eternal, always having existed.  I have to remind them that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and certainly cannot create itself, nor cause itself to exist before the Big Bang (time did not exist before the Big Bang).  Their response is either that nothing does not actually mean nothing (at which point I offer to buy them a dictionary) or that nothing simply equals 0 (which is mathematically untrue, considering zero is a whole number).  Both responses are appealing to the ambiguity of the word "nothing".  They are both fallacies by ambiguity.

A more formal example was provided by Aristotle:

P1) Socrates is Greek.
P2) Greek is a language.
C) Therefore, Socrates is a language.

In P1, Aristotle used one definition of the word "Greek".  In P2, he swapped out the first definition (referring to the people of Greece) for the second definition (referring to the language spoken in Greece).  This bait-and-switch led to the false conclusion that Socrates is a language.

The Gambler's Fallacy

This fallacy effectively built the city of Las Vegas, Nevada.  If you toss a coin, your chance of landing heads-up or tails-up is 50/50 every time.  The Gambler's Fallacy assumes that if you constantly land heads-up, you are more likely to land tails-down on the next flip.  This is not true: your chances are still 50/50, even if you flip heads a thousand times in a row (which is mathematically possible, but statistically rare).  Here's why:

"The system has no memory." 

—John Norton

That coin doesn't remember what face it landed on when you last flipped it, so it's still going to retain its 50/50 chance of landing either heads-up or tails-up.  Each flip of the coin is statistically independent of every other flip.

Things associated with Gambler's Fallacies are Roulette Wheels, Punnett Squares, Slot Machines, and Dice.

The Bandwagon

This is not only a logical fallacy, but also a propaganda tactic.  It is also known as the "Everybody's Doing It" pitch and the "Appeal to Popularity Fallacy".  The premise of the fallacy is that if many believe something is true, then it is true.  It assumes that the popularity of something can give it validation, which is not true.

Christianity is the most popular religion in the entire world, but that doesn't mean that Christianity is necessarily true.  Over 2 billion people practice Christianity, but just because they are strong in numbers does not make them right.  If this were true, then at one point in human history, the earth really was flat.

Reality does not bend to satisfy popular belief.  Reality is entirely independent of one's beliefs and perceptions.

The Appeal to Authority

If you've seen a commercial of a celebrity endorsing a product, you've seen the Appeal to Authority.  This fallacy asserts that a person's title or status gives their claims validity.  A scientist who makes a claim isn't right just because he is a scientist; he is right because he has tested his theories and published his observations to be reviewed by everyone, and his findings were found to be true.  Basically, this fallacy thinks that people in authority are inherently correct.

Let's say that I'm making a case against evolution.  I could Appeal to Authority by saying that I know a professor who questions evolution.  That does not close the case.  Now both the professor and I have to support our claims that evolution is false.  His being a learned scholar does not validate his claims.

And now, a disclaimer from yourlogicalfallacyis.com:

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus.  Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but neither is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.  However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

The Composition/Division Fallacy

With this fallacy, one must assume that a thing of many parts must be like all of its parts, or that its parts are just like other parts of it.  This happens because we see that many things are consistent, so often we just assume that there are consistencies in places where they don't actually exist.

Leaves aren't very heavy.  Neither are garbage bags.  I figured that if I put a million leaves into a garbage bad, I'd be able to carry it no problem, because the bag full of leaves would be light since the leaves and the bag itself are also light.  This is not true (a million leaves in a bag is quite heavy).  The bag of leaves (the Composition) is heavy, whereas the leaves themselves (a Division) and the bag itself (another Division) are light.

It is entirely possible that if something is true for a part of something, it can also be true for the whole thing.  The fallacy lies in assuming that this is always the case.

The Masked Man Fallacy

This fallacy has two other names: the Intensional Fallacy and the Epistemic Fallacy.  It is a fallacy derived from a misunderstanding of Leibniz's Law of the Identity of Indiscernibles.  Leibniz's Law states that if there are any two things, and if they are identical to each other, then for what is true of one it will be true of the other.  The misunderstanding occurs when two identical things do not appear to be identical, but are still identical regardless.

For example, let's say that I know a man named Jones.  I know who Jones is.  Now, suppose I meet a masked man on the street.  The Masked Man Fallacy would be for me to say that because I know who Jones is, and I do not know who the masked man is, Jones is therefore not the masked man.  Jones may very well be the masked man, which would make Jones and the masked man identical.  Lois Lane no doubt committed this very fallacy when she concluded that Superman was not Clark Kent, despite them being the same person.

"No True Scotsman..."

So, two Scotsmen were eating some porridge.  One of them claimed "Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge", to which the second Scotsman replied, "I am a Scotsman, and I do put sugar on my porridge."  In response, the first Scotsman declared, "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!"

Thusly this fallacy was named.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is also called "The Appeal to Purity".  It is a method of dismissing relevant criticisms or flaws in your argument, or as a method of covering your tracks in order to avoid embarrassment.

For instance, I once participated in a golf tournament with my dad and some of his friends.  A few of my friends were on another team, which did not score as well as my team.  Rather than accept their position on the scoreboard, one of them said, "You used Mulligans to improve your score; we didn't.  No true golfer uses Mulligans.  We played true golf."  (Rather than point out the fallacy to him, I let it slide and bought him a drink.)

The Genetic Fallacy

Genetics determine the origin of something, and this fallacy assumes that a claim is wrong based solely on the grounds of from where or from whom the claim originated.  A great example of this fallacy is found in the defense of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's pitch is that it is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit".  If that is the case, then the possibility of inaccurate or incomplete information being published to the site is likely.  You have to be careful when using Wikipedia as a research tool, and should always cross-reference its articles with other sources of information, as you would do for any thorough research project.

The fallacy rears its ugly head when a teacher says, "You may not use Wikipedia articles in your Works Cited page because Wikipedia is not an accurate source."  This throws a negative shadow over Wikipedia articles, and ignores the actual truthiness of the articles in question.  It is similar to Ad Hominem for this reason; it uses preexisting negative connotations to make a claim or argument appear invalid.

A rampant example of this fallacy is saying, "You can't believe everything you hear on the internet", after seeing rumors about yourself posted online.  This is a fallacy whether or not the rumors are true.  Just because it is easy to publish falsehoods online does not mean that everything on the internet is not true.

Black & White Reasoning

This is also known as the Either/Or Fallacy or the False Dilemma.  It is an extremely dishonest debate tactic that often looks like a coherent, logical argument.  This fallacy assumes that only two possibilities can exist for a given situation, and that only one of those possibilities can be true.  This presents a dilemma, a circumstance wherein there are only two options, and neither are entirely favorable.  However, in a debate setting, dilemmas rarely occur.  This binary illogic doesn't consider the variables, contexts, or other conditions that the real world possesses.  In real-world scenarios, you are hard-pressed to find a situation in which there are only two possibilities.

For example, the phrase "you are either with us or against us" is a false dilemma.  If I do not align myself with a certain party (a political party, for example), it does not necessarily follow that I must align myself with the opposing party.  Indeed, there are other possibilities in this scenario.  I could align with a third party, or even with no party at all.  I could be completely neutral or apathetic towards all parties.

If something is not white, that does not necessarily make it black.  It could be black, of course, but it could be a multitude of colors, or even a combination of colors.  Thus, Black & White Reasoning is illogical.

Begging the Question

I encountered this fallacy while having a discussion with a Mormon.  I had asked him how he knew that the Book of Mormon was true.  He then showed me a section of the Book's preface where it informed me that Book of Mormon was indeed true, and was also comparable to the Bible in terms of religious priority.

In essence, his argument was that the Book of Mormon is true because the Book of Mormon said it was true.

A person begs the question in a debate when they make an argument where the conclusion is included in the premise of the argument.  Thus, the argument becomes circular, as the conclusion is within the premise, rather than the conclusion logically following the premise.  For instance:

1) Claim X assumes that x is true.
2) Therefore, Claim X is true.

My favorite example is, We know the Bible is false because Atheism is true.  I've actually heard a person use that in an argument.  The argument assumes that Atheism is true, which is not logically axiomatic, and therefore this argument is circular.  What this argument is really saying is Atheism is true because it isn't false.  It's a never ending circle of faulty logic.

Begging the Question is often called Circular Reasoning, but that is not entirely accurate.  Begging the Question is a particular type of vicious Circular Reasoning.  There are certain situations where Circular Reasoning is acceptable.

The Appeal to Nature

Many people assume that if something happens naturally, then it must be okay or valid.  This is not necessarily true.  It's easy to think that natural things are good, but making such a broad generalization makes it easier for us to fall into logical traps, such as the Appeal to Nature.

To commit this fallacy, simply assume that natural things can be justified by their naturalness.  I know a few advocates of the LGBT movement who attempt to justify same-sex marriage by saying it is a natural thing that has been practiced for centuries.  I exposed their appeal to nature by stating that rape is also natural (mallard ducks have been observed to rape their mates, often in a rather aggressive manner), so by their logic, rape should be just as acceptable as gay marriage.  I made a few enemies that day, but my point nevertheless got across.

Anecdotes

An anecdote is a short, often personal, story.  Anecdotes are great for casual conversation, but be careful not to use them as a substitute for a rational argument.  Personal experiences often do not match up with statistically verifiable data, so using an anecdote to refute a point is a logical fallacy.

For example, I can prove in 4 points or less why abortion is not only unethical, but also an illogical practice.  Despite my rationally-constructed points, women try to dismiss my arguments by essentially giving me their life story, explaining how getting an abortion was beneficial to their lives.

Not only was their "argument" merely a selfish justification, it also did absolutely nothing to refute the logical points I presented them with.  They outright ignored my argument and instead gave me an emotionally-charged personal testimony.  That does not a coherent argument make.

A more specific example: your statistical odds of having a coin flip and land heads-up is 50/50.  Now, suppose you flip a quarter 100 times, and it lands heads-up 77 times.  If you then said, "I flipped a quarter 100 times, and it fell on heads 77 times, so the chance of a quarter landing on heads is 77%," you would be committing an anecdotal fallacy.  You used an anecdote to dodge statistical data.

The Texas Sharpshooter

There is a story of a Texan marksman who shot at random points on the wall of a barn.  Afterwards, he painted a bullseye around the biggest cluster of bullet holes he had made.  This made it look like he was an excellent shot, when in fact all he did was focused on the cluster that best supported his claim of being a sharpshooter.

Similarly, it is easy to focus on data clusters that support your claims, while ignoring instances where the data differs.  A false conclusion arises when you focus on similarities and ignore differences.

If you are a Texas Sharpshooter, you present skewed statistics or take quotes or points out of context to fit your argument.  Indeed, quoting a source out of context is the most common example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.  Every attempt to find cryptograms in the Bible has been shown to be a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.  The author of The DaVinci Code is likewise a Texas Sharpshooter.

Suppose I make a claim that is false.  I don't want to admit that I'm wrong, so I do a quick Google search and find an article that supports my claim.  If I present this article and say "Aha!  I was right all along!  Here is my source." that is a Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, because I have ignored all of the sources that contradict my claim and focused on the only source that supported my claim.  In reality, my source was just as incorrect as I was.

The Fallacy of the Middle Ground

Making a compromise to avoid an argument or to avoid Black & White extremes is hazardous to the coherency of your points.  The Fallacy of the Middle Ground is a fallacy wherein you say that the middle ground between two extremes must be true.  While it is true that many times the truth does lie between two extremes, that does not mean that the middle point must be true.  This fallacy is similar to Black & White reasoning in this regard.

At times, one or both of two extremes might be true.  Likewise, on or both of two extremes might be false.  Sometimes, things are just untrue, and by extension, compromises drawn from these untruths are also untrue.

For example, many scientists agree that Evolution is true.  However, there are some scientists who disagree, and posit that the species of the earth are intelligently designed, rather than having evolved.  A Middle Ground fallacy would be to compromise that Theistic Evolution—or at least a guided evolutionary process—must therefore be true, without offering any other evidence in support of your claim.

The Appeal to Probability

People like to take statistical probabilities for granted, ignoring the fact that we live in a chaotic world where randomness abounds.  Appealing to probability does exactly that.   I will use Murphy's Law as an example.  Murphy's Law states that "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."  However, to say that something can go wrong, therefore it will go wrong is an invalid conclusion.  You cannot make a logical deduction by using an inductive argument.

P1) There is an 80% chance that it will rain tomorrow.
P2) Because it will probably rain tomorrow, then it will rain tomorrow.
C) Therefore, it will rain tomorrow.

The Argument from Silence

It is easy for us to say that because there is no evidence for something, it must therefore be false.  One's conclusion should not be based on the absence of evidence; rather, the conclusion should be based on the existence of evidence.

For example, there is no evidence to suggest that I am a kangaroo.  However, there is evidence to suggest that I am a human.  The conclusion that I am a human should be drawn from the fact that there is evidence to support my humanity.  One should not conclude that I am not a kangaroo simply because there is a lack of evidence to support this claim.

A more relevant example would be to say that because there is a lack of evidence for the existence of there being a deity, no deities must exist.  When there is no evidence to support a positive claim, try looking for evidence to support the negative claim.  If you can find no evidence for or against a claim, I would recommend either amending the claim or finding a new one.

The Appeal to Tradition

It's easy to conclude that just because something has been held true for a long time, then it must genuinely be true.  If this were the case, however, then the earth, at one point in time, actually was orbited by the sun and the other planets, as it was widely held to be the case for centuries.

It can be hazardous for someone to be "set in their ways", because ones ways could be wrong.  There was a time when dark-skinned humans were traditionally believed to be cursed, which was used to justify the African slave trade.  Indeed, some people still hold to this tradition, despite the overwhelming evidence which demonstrated a noted lack of any curse resulting in dark skin.

The opposite of this fallacy is the Appeal to Novelty, which asserts that an idea is superior because it is new or modern.  Appealing to Tradition or Novelty are both equally fallacious.

The Fallacy of Relative Privation

This fallacy is an appeal to worse problems.  It asserts that a person's claim should be ignored because there are more important issues or problems in the world that should be addressed instead.  This is a fallacy because it does nothing to refute or debunk the person's claim.  It merely shifts the spotlight away from the claim so that doesn't have to be addressed.

A common example of this fallacy is as follows: "If you are prepared to feed the homeless people in your city, what about the starving children in Africa?"  Here, it is easier to see that this fallacy implies that any issue less serious than starving Africans is not worthy of discussion.  It is often used to protest inconsistent behavior or to deflect a criticism against oneself.

Red Herrings

This is the logical fallacy I am most commonly guilty of, though not always intentionally.  A red herring is a point or argument that is used to distract the debate from the original topic being discussed.  The red herring argument is often easier to speak to, which is why they crop up in debates.  It is important to keep the original topic in focus, otherwise the debate will follow a series of rabbit trails, and the original points will not be addressed.

A few months ago, some of my peers and I were debating on the implications of Separation of Church and State.  One of my friends made the point that we do indeed have such a separation here in America.  I put forth the red herring argument that Separation of Church and State does not appear in the United States Constitution.  Thankfully, my friend caught me, explained how it appears in several other important American documents, and steered the debate back towards the original topic.  I was embarrassed afterwards.

Appeals to Emotion, Authority, and Nature, as well as Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque fallacies are other variations of red herring arguments.

The Hasty Generalization

Generalization is very dangerous, because it often leads to unwarranted assumptions.  Hasty generalizations are similar to Composition/Division Fallacies: they assume that because a small sample of something is a certain way, then that something must always be that way.

For example, it can be observed that birds have wings.  All the birds I have seen fly.  Therefore, all birds fly.  This is a hasty generalization because while generally birds are flying animals, certain birds, such as the penguin, do not fly.  Just because something is generally true does not mean that it is always true.

Stereotypes are a great example of the hasty generalization.  It's easy to say that everyone in a certain people group is exactly the same in one aspect, because that way we don't have to think as hard.  Reputations are the same way.  We like to generalize because it makes things easier to understand, even at the cost of losing some correct information along the way.

Confirmation Bias

If you have a hypothesis, you probably want your hypothesis to be proven correct so you can move on to your next point or project or what have you.  We humans, ever confident in ourselves, can often have our thinking biased due to our fear of being wrong.  If you have a confirmation bias, this means that you have a tendency to favor evidence that supports your hypothesis, rather than evidence that opposes your hypothesis.  This fallacious line of thinking often leads to other fallacies, such as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, because you may exclusively select evidence that only supports your argument, or interpret evidence in a biased way.

Every human being has bias.  It is important to keep that in mind as you conduct research, because while you may want to be right all the time (who doesn't want that?), what is more important is that you and everyone else knows the facts, rather than what we would like to believe is true.  Thus, we most often see the Confirmation Bias at its strongest in controversial and emotionally-charged topics, such as abortion, homosexuality, evolution, and religion.

The Argument from Fallacy

It is possible for a person's conclusion to be true, even if they came to that conclusion using flawed reasoning.  When you say a conclusion is false because its premises are fallacious, you are committing the Argument from Fallacy.  I will use my cat to demonstrate this fallacy.

Suppose I make the claim, "Since all cats are animals and since Mouser is an animal, Mouser is therefore a cat."  My best friend (and fellow lover of logic) Andrew could respond by saying, "You have committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent!  Therefore, Mouser is not a cat!"  The problem is that Mouser is indeed a cat, and so Andrew would be guilty of the Argument from Fallacy.  I arrived at a correct conclusion from fallacious premises, indeed.  However, Andrew arrived at a false conclusion from correct premises.