Would you like to play a game?

Can you spot the logical fallacy?:

1) The bible is the best selling book of all time. Millions of people believe in it. Therefore there must be something to it.

2) Evolutionists claim that a monkey gave birth to a human being. This is obviously ridiculous, and they can present no evidence to support that position. Therefore evolution is false.

3) It is inconceivable that a world this complex could have arisen by chance. Therefore, there must have been some intelligent design agency.

   It was, of course, a trick question. Each of the above statements are examples of fallacious reasoning.

   The first is what is known as an argument from popularity, which asserts that popular support for a position gives that position validity. This argument is fallacious because it is easily possible for many people to believe in something that is untrue. Several hundred years ago it was almost universally believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that all other heavenly bodies revolved around it. That idea is now known to be completely false. The fact that millions of people believe something to be true in no way proves that thing to be true.

   The second statement is called a strawman fallacy. In it, the arguer has constructed a strawman replica of his opponent's position. It resembles his opponent's argument in some ways, but is weaker, and can easily be refuted. Having done so, the arguer wants his listeners to believe he has successfully refuted the actual argument.
   In the above example, no evolutionary scientist has ever claimed that a monkey gave birth to a human being. Refuting that argument does not, in any way, refute the real arguments put forward by proponents of evolution.

   The third statement is what is known as an argument from personal incredulity. Just because the arguer cannot conceive of a situation does not mean it is impossible for that situation to arise. Someone with more imagination may be able to reason it out. In many cases, the particular event or situation may already be adequately explained by current science that the arguer is unaware of.

   Of course, pointing out to someone that their argument is based on a logical fallacy does not disprove their position. It only means that they have failed to prove it themselves. Believing that pointing out to someone that they have failed to prove their point refutes their point is another logical fallacy called the fallacist's fallacy.
   This is an important thing to remember. Just because you catch the person you are arguing with in a logical fallacy does not exempt you from falling into the same trap. As skeptic, it is my job to argue effectively, without using any of the same fallacious reasoning I might come across in the arguments of those I engage. 
   So, for example, calling Ann Coulter a fatuous, lying, stork-like, ugly witch is an Ad Hominem attack, and completely irrelevant to any discussion of the opinions expressed in her book. So I won't do it.

tags:Skepticism,