Friday, May 22, 2020

On the Fallacy Fallacy


In logic, there is a fallacy called the “fallacy fallacy.” Simply put, it is a fallacy to claim that one’s conclusion is, ipso facto, in error if one uses fallacious argumentation to support it. A great example (and a comical one) can be seen in The Adventures of Fallacy Man.

Christian Cotton, in his “Argument from Fallacy,” wrote:

Also known as argumentum ad logicam, argument to logic, fallacy fallacy, and fallacist’s fallacy, the argument from fallacy occurs when one reasons that because the argument for some conclusion is fallacious, the conclusion of that argument is false. Truth and falsity are features of claims. Fallacies are errors in reasoning, not errors about truth or falsity. That is, if someone has committed a fallacy, then he has made an error in reasoning; but it doesn’t follow that he has made an actual error.  Consider the following example.

(1) If Atlanta is the capital of Georgia, then it is in the United States.
(2) Atlanta is in the United States.
(3) Therefore, Atlanta is the capital of Georgia.

This argument illustrates the fallacy of affirming the consequent. As a deductive argument, it is invalid – one cannot draw/infer the conclusion from the premises – and yet the conclusion is true. As such, it should be clear that poor reasoning (committing a fallacy) does not entail a false conclusion. One would not, in the above example, respond reasonably if she were to suggest that, because a fallacy has been committed, it is false that Atlanta is the capital of Georgia. Nevertheless, the conclusion of the fallacious argument may well be false. The reason is that it’s one thing to commit an error in reasoning and quite another to get the facts wrong. The one does not follow from the other. Therefore, because the truth or falsity of a claim cannot be inferred solely from the quality of the reasoning, concluding that a claim is false because an error in reasoning (a fallacy) has occurred is itself an error in reasoning. Hence, the name fallacy fallacy. (Chistian Cotton, “Argument from Fallacy,” in Robert Arp, Steven Barbone, and Michael Bruce, eds. Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy [Oxford: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2019], 125-26)

To give an example from the realm of LDS apologetics, many LDS (errantly) appeal to Isa 29 and Ezek 37 as prophecies of the Book of Mormon, and argue thusly:

If the Book of Mormon is from God, there would be prophecies concerning the text in the Bible
The Bible in Isa 29 and Ezek 37 are prophecies of the Book of Mormon
Conclusion: the Book of Mormon is true as it fulfils biblical prophecy

To see why these texts are not prophecies of the Book of Mormon, see:


and


However, it would be fallacious to argue against the Book of Mormon thusly:

LDS claim Isa 29 and Ezek 37 are prophecies of the Book of Mormon
Exegetically, they are not prophecies of the Book of Mormon
Conclusion: The Book of Mormon is false

Such would be to commit the fallacy fallacy, as the authenticity of the Book of Mormon does not depend upon whether the Bible prophecies of the Book of Mormon, or, as Daniel Peterson once wrote in response to one critic:

. . .  even if the argument from Isaiah 29 could be shown not to support the Book of Mormon, the fact that it did not -- which I am simply assuming here for purposes of argument -- would not constitute evidence AGAINST the Book of Mormon, but only against certain arguments that have been offered on behalf of that book.

While LDS should strive to provide logically sound reasoning and valid evidence supporting our claims, our critics should avoid the “fallacy fallacy” too.