One or two of you may find what is written below interesting. Most of you would do well to skip this claptrap.
On the first and third Monday of every month I meet with three highly intelligent people to discuss theology books. Boring yes, but in Appalachia other choices are limited to a pool game or a meth party.
During yesterday’s discussion I asked a question that received no answer so I did some research that lead to some random thoughts. I put those thoughts into an email that I sent to my friends. Here is what I wrote:
Yesterday I asked what an argument based on a false premise is called. Well…it’s called–duh–a false premise.
I read the following in an Wikipedia article about a false premise that I thought was interesting:
“A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.
“For example, consider this syllogism, which involves a false premise:
-
- If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
- The streets are wet. (premise)
- Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
“This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false – one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument’s premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute.
“Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained and that the streets are wet. This does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute.”
The point is this: when we discuss books, ideas or concepts we need to keep in mind that many of the arguments we read or hear are based on a false premise.
Another problem is an ad hominem fallacy that is directed against a person rather than the position the person maintains. Facebook debates are filled with ad hominem arguments.
Another fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc —”after this, therefore because of this” whereby people confuse an association with a cause. This fallacy is often found in longitudinal medical studies and causes a NY Times heading one year saying “Coffee Causes Cancer” and the next year “Coffee Prevents Cancer.”
This post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy also means that just because I associate with you smart guys does not mean that I am smart. I just write things like this to cause you to to think I am smart.