Fallacy Challenge!

[Trendem]

Some or all of the following arguments (I've invented some and adapted others from online posts and articles) are fallacious. Your challenge is to 1) Point out which argument/s are fallacious, and 2) Identify and explain the specific fallacy/s being committed in each case. Beware - the answers might not be as straightforward as they seem. :evil:

Argument 1
In 1998, the journal Nature polled the members of the National Academy of Sciences on their belief in God. Of all those questioned, biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief - only 5.5 percent were theists. When 94.5 percent of the "scientific elite" in the field of biological science has a plausibility structure that rejects the possibility of a Supreme Intelligent Being, it is not surprising that they would reject the very concept of an intelligent designer.

Argument 2
The bank advertisement promoting its loan product projects a wrong image of itself. The ad shows a man smashing a guitar on stage to the appreciation of the crowd. This violent act is reminiscent of the hippies era of the 60s, a subculture associated with drugs and anti-establishment. Picture Pete Townshend, axeman of the British rock band The Who, whose guitar smashing acts was a standard feature of their shows. The late Jimi Hendrix did a similar act in the Monterey International Pop festival in California in 1967, setting fire and smashing his guitar. Pete Townshend, in the latter part of his life, was indicted for child pornography offence and Jimi Hendrix died of drug overdose in September 1970. Is the bank sure it wants to be associated with these acts?

Argument 3
Given that its stance has come under overwhelming international opprobrium, the Chinese government should release its hold over Tibet and grant the latter autonomy. It would be a grave mistake for a country struggling to establish itself as a respectable world power to pay no heed to international opinion.

Argument 4
Hitler was a great believer in Darwinism too. In fact, his genocide of those he deemed "inferior" or "unfit" was borne out of his unflappable conviction in natural selection and the survival of the fittest. This demonstrates the dangers inherent in our current culture of exalting Darwinistic theory - even if evolution were true, its disturbing moral implications should give us pause before we propagate it so nonchalantly.

Argument 5
Some critics of science are fond of using examples of "science" being mistaken in order to establish that science is unreliable. These critics are wrong, for their examples of "science" very often refer to things such as the geocentric view of the universe or the flat earth theory - theories that were not arrived at via what we now view as the scientific method. In essence, they are attacking a straw man version of "science".

[Castle]

The first three appear to be reasonable.

4 is a clear equivocation, an attempt to conflate the scientific theory of natural selection with the moral system of Social Darwinism.

5 is a sweeping generalization: it addresses only two examples but claims that all critics of "unreliable science" are wrong. I would also argue that it is simply factually incorrect; early conclusions inevitably used the basic outline of the method, albeit not formally and explicitly.

[Squatch347]

I think number three is a borderline fallacy. Being a 'world power' is not contingent on world power. However, calling it a 'grave mistake' might be true. Whether it is technically a fallacy though I think it is hard to say being that the comment is very subjective. Its more akin to "X is bad", not "X is wrong".

[Trendem]

The first three appear to be reasonable.
Wrong... at least one of them contains a fallacy.


4 is a clear equivocation, an attempt to conflate the scientific theory of natural selection with the moral system of Social Darwinism
Wrong, there is no fallacy of equivocation here (there might be another fallacy though). At no point did the writer use "Darwinism" or "natural selection" to refer to social Darwinism. He merely argued that Hitler's belief in natural selection led to the latter's genocidal acts.


5 is a sweeping generalization: it addresses only two examples but claims that all critics of "unreliable science" are wrong. I would also argue that it is simply factually incorrect; early conclusions inevitably used the basic outline of the method, albeit not formally and explicitly.
Wrong; read carefully. The argument clearly specifies "some critics of science", and goes on to refer to "these critics...". So no generalisation here.


I think number three is a borderline fallacy. Being a 'world power' is not contingent on world power. However, calling it a 'grave mistake' might be true. Whether it is technically a fallacy though I think it is hard to say being that the comment is very subjective. Its more akin to "X is bad", not "X is wrong".
There's no such thing as a "borderline fallacy"; something is either fallacious or it is not. I am not looking for merely unconvincing arguments, I'm looking for logical fallacies.

[Squatch347]

Ah, forgive me, I didn't realize that this was a quiz of sorts, sorry trendem.

[Trendem]

Ah, forgive me, I didn't realize that this was a quiz of sorts, sorry trendem.
Yes, it is a quiz - that's what the Fallacy Challenge forum is about. Of course, my answers might be wrong, so more discussion is good. :)

[Castle]

Wrong... at least one of them contains a fallacy.
Argument 1
1) ~Theism -> ~Intelligent Design (def. of Intelligent Design)
2) ~Theism (evidence cited)
3) ~Intelligent design
No fallacies

Argument 2
1) Being associated with hippy culture is bad for a bank's image (premise)
2) A commercial involving a guitar-smashing will associate the bank with hippy culture in the public's mind
3) The commercial is bad for the bank's image

This is almost poisoning the well, but not quite; the argument is that people will associate guitar smashing with hippy culture, not that the bank actually supports hippy culture.
No fallacies

Argument 3
1) World opinion is important for China to be an emerging world power
2) The Tibet issue has reduced China's world opinion
3) To support its status as an emerging world power, China should give in on the Tibet issue
No fallacies



Wrong, there is no fallacy of equivocation here (there might be another fallacy though). At no point did the writer use "Darwinism" or "natural selection" to refer to social Darwinism. He merely argued that Hitler's belief in natural selection led to the latter's genocidal acts.

"...even if evolution were true, its disturbing moral implications..."
This is clearly "evolution = social darwinism" rather than the (correct) "evolution = scientific theory". Hence the equivocation.


Wrong; read carefully. The argument clearly specifies "some critics of science", and goes on to refer to "these critics...". So no generalisation here.
"These critics" references the critics who "[use] examples of "science" being mistaken in order to establish that science is unreliable". The refutation offered does not answer all of "these critics", and is thus an overgeneralization.

[Trendem]

Argument 1
Most biologists reject intelligent design because they reject theism (evidence cited); accepting theism is necessary to accepting intelligent design.
No fallacies
My opinion is that this argument commits the fallacy of questionable cause (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The argument is that intelligent design is unpopular among the elite biological scientists because they do not believe in God. However, this causal conclusion is drawn without adequate justification, and it could well be that elite biological scientists don't believe in God or ID because of their knowledge of science and the evidence. Thus, instead of A causing B, both A and B might have been caused by C.


This is clearly "evolution = social darwinism" rather than the (correct) "evolution = scientific theory". Hence the equivocation.
The fallacy is not equivocation, but the is-ought fallacy. The writer is not trying to substitute natural selection with social Darwinism; he is trying to argue that natural selection exerts disturbing moral implications. The fallacy in this argument is his assumption that just because something is the case in nature (natural selection, survival of the fittest), then it should be the case morally (i.e. having a moral implication).

If the writer were trying to equate Darwinism with social Darwinism, he wouldn't have written that Darwinism had "disturbing moral implications"; he would have directly stated that Darwinism was immoral (Darwinism having been treated synonymously to social Darwinism).


"These critics" references the critics who "[use] examples of "science" being mistaken in order to establish that science is unreliable". The refutation offered does not answer all of "these critics", and is thus an overgeneralization.
You're right. I didn't phrase it properly enough. "These critics" should have referred to those who use the geocentric or flat earth model as examples.

[Castle]

My opinion is that this argument commits the fallacy of questionable cause (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The argument is that intelligent design is unpopular among the elite biological scientists because they do not believe in God. However, this causal conclusion is drawn without adequate justification, and it could well be that elite biological scientists don't believe in God or ID because of their knowledge of science and the evidence. Thus, instead of A causing B, both A and B might have been caused by C.
Hmm...I see your point. Perhaps the issue is one of reverse causation: Argument 1 attempts to suggest that biologists' atheism causes them to discard intelligent design, when in fact discarding intelligent design is necessary for atheism? So the 95% figure isn't saying that biologists are unfairly prejudiced against intelligent design, but rather than 95% (or more) of biologists have already considered intelligent design and rejected it.


The fallacy is not equivocation, but the is-ought fallacy. The writer is not trying to substitute natural selection with social Darwinism; he is trying to argue that natural selection exerts disturbing moral implications. The fallacy in this argument is his assumption that just because something is the case in nature (natural selection, survival of the fittest), then it should be the case morally (i.e. having a moral implication).
I would argue that is-ought is a specific case of equivocation (specifically, equating what is with what ought to be). Your answer is preferable, though.

[Muse]

Argument 1...Of all those questioned, biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief - only 5.5 percent were theists. When 94.5 percent of the "scientific elite" in the field of biological science has a plausibility structure that rejects the possibility of a Supreme Intelligent Being,...
This argument also poses a False Dilemma (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), because although only 5.5 percent of the scientists are theists, the other 94.5% might include agnostics, who might not "reject the possibility of" God.

[CliveStaples]

Argument 1
In 1998, the journal Nature polled the members of the National Academy of Sciences on their belief in God. Of all those questioned, biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief - only 5.5 percent were theists. When 94.5 percent of the "scientific elite" in the field of biological science has a plausibility structure that rejects the possibility of a Supreme Intelligent Being, it is not surprising that they would reject the very concept of an intelligent designer.

Well, I suppose you could call it a false dilemma. The argument attempts to force a decision between belief in a Supreme Intelligent Being and atheism, when there are many kinds of theism that do not involve belief in a Supreme Intelligent Being.



My opinion is that this argument commits the fallacy of questionable cause (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The argument is that intelligent design is unpopular among the elite biological scientists because they do not believe in God. However, this causal conclusion is drawn without adequate justification, and it could well be that elite biological scientists don't believe in God or ID because of their knowledge of science and the evidence. Thus, instead of A causing B, both A and B might have been caused by C.Except that the argument doesn't say that their disbelief in God is the only reason they reject ID; it says only that their atheism precludes belief in ID. Their scientific understanding may do so as well, but the argument doesn't say anything about that.



Argument 2
The bank advertisement promoting its loan product projects a wrong image of itself. The ad shows a man smashing a guitar on stage to the appreciation of the crowd. This violent act is reminiscent of the hippies era of the 60s, a subculture associated with drugs and anti-establishment. Picture Pete Townshend, axeman of the British rock band The Who, whose guitar smashing acts was a standard feature of their shows. The late Jimi Hendrix did a similar act in the Monterey International Pop festival in California in 1967, setting fire and smashing his guitar. Pete Townshend, in the latter part of his life, was indicted for child pornography offence and Jimi Hendrix died of drug overdose in September 1970. Is the bank sure it wants to be associated with these acts?The fallacy of guilt by association, I suppose. There is also no adequate link between the act of smashing a guitar and the criminal acts described.


Argument 3
Given that its stance has come under overwhelming international opprobrium, the Chinese government should release its hold over Tibet and grant the latter autonomy. It would be a grave mistake for a country struggling to establish itself as a respectable world power to pay no heed to international opinion. Bandwagon fallacy, I guess--"join with the popular opinion, because it's popular!"


Argument 4
Hitler was a great believer in Darwinism too. In fact, his genocide of those he deemed "inferior" or "unfit" was borne out of his unflappable conviction in natural selection and the survival of the fittest. This demonstrates the dangers inherent in our current culture of exalting Darwinistic theory - even if evolution were true, its disturbing moral implications should give us pause before we propagate it so nonchalantly. There are no moral implications to evolution. An is-ought fallacy, I guess.


Argument 5

Some critics of science are fond of using examples of "science" being mistaken in order to establish that science is unreliable. These critics are wrong, for their examples of "science" very often refer to things such as the geocentric view of the universe or the flat earth theory - theories that were not arrived at via what we now view as the scientific method. In essence, they are attacking a straw man version of "science".I don't think there's any logical fallacies here (some might dispute whether the argument is accurate, but that isn't a question of fallacy in argumentation), although the refutation is incomplete--what about their examples of "science" that don't refer to theories that were not arrived at via what we now view as the scientific method?

[exist]

being new to all this I am going to try one at a time.

Argument 1
In 1998, the journal Nature polled the members of the National Academy of Sciences on their belief in God. Of all those questioned, biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief - only 5.5 percent were theists. When 94.5 percent of the "scientific elite" in the field of biological science has a plausibility structure that rejects the possibility of a Supreme Intelligent Being, it is not surprising that they would reject the very concept of an intelligent designer.

1. Only 5.5 percent of biological scientists were theists (theists may believe in one or more gods)
2. 94.5 percent of the scientific elite has a plausibility structure rejecting a supreme intelligent being. (This does not follow from 1.)
3. Biological scientists reject the concept of intelligent design
Irrelevant conclusion.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ _{Post Merged}_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
Argument 2
The bank advertisement promoting its loan product projects a wrong image of itself. The ad shows a man smashing a guitar on stage to the appreciation of the crowd. This violent act is reminiscent of the hippies era of the 60s, a subculture associated with drugs and anti-establishment. Picture Pete Townshend, axeman of the British rock band The Who, whose guitar smashing acts was a standard feature of their shows. The late Jimi Hendrix did a similar act in the Monterey International Pop festival in California in 1967, setting fire and smashing his guitar. Pete Townshend, in the latter part of his life, was indicted for child pornography offence and Jimi Hendrix died of drug overdose in September 1970. Is the bank sure it wants to be associated with these acts?

1. Wrong image created.
2. examples of perceived bad behavior
3. association with this behavior’
Appeal to emotion

<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ _{Post Merged}_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
Argument 3
Given that its stance has come under overwhelming international opprobrium, the Chinese government should release its hold over Tibet and grant the latter autonomy. It would be a grave mistake for a country struggling to establish itself as a respectable world power to pay no heed to international opinion.

1. Overwhelming international opprobrium.
2. Grave mistake.
3. Not to heed international opinion.
Appeal to force
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ _{Post Merged}_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
Argument 4
Hitler was a great believer in Darwinism too. In fact, his genocide of those he deemed "inferior" or "unfit" was borne out of his unflappable conviction in natural selection and the survival of the fittest. This demonstrates the dangers inherent in our current culture of exalting Darwinistic theory - even if evolution were true, its disturbing moral implications should give us pause before we propagate it so nonchalantly.

1. Hitler was a great believer in Darwinism
2.His convictions, which are not natural selection but his convictions.
3.danger in nonchalantly propagating Darwin’s theory.
Ad Hominem
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ _{Post Merged}_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
Argument 5
Some critics of science are fond of using examples of "science" being mistaken in order to establish that science is unreliable. These critics are wrong, for their examples of "science" very often refer to things such as the geocentric view of the universe or the flat earth theory - theories that were not arrived at via what we now view as the scientific method. In essence, they are attacking a straw man version of "science".

1. Critics of Science as unreliable because of its mistakes are wrong.
2. Their examples often include theories that ignore the scientific method.
3. They set up straw men.
I have trouble finding a fallacy here
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ _{Post Merged}_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
In argument 1
if A are Theists
and B are not Theists
then C reject the concept of intelligent design.

This would be a fallacy as premise A and B do not support claim C
Just because B is not a part of A does not mean are all a part of C they reject intelligent design, but may mean they reject Theism.

[bethabigail]

I'm not sure the vocabulary, but here's the problems I see..

Argument 1 seems okay, but I'd be worried that equating a belief in god to a belief in an intelligent designer is asking too much of the data. To be more clear, I feel that the belief in a Judeo-christian god, and the belief in intelligent design are two very different things.

Argument 2 is ridiculous to say that because the writer is reminded of the 1960's, and two particular poor examples in the 1960's, that the bank is aligning itself with that violence.

Argument 3 sounds like ad populum/peer pressure.. or the whole false dillema (correct term?) .. It sets up only two options, and says either China gives Tibet autonomy, or it will be rejected by the rest of the world.

Argument 4 takes an extreme example and runs with it. Although honestly, it's easy to get wrapped up in survival of the fittest and natural selection...

Argument 5 sounds good to me.

[Kangarooman]

3 and 5 are valid. (perhaps 2)
3: Is valid because "if a country wants to be a respectable world power, it should pay heed to international opinion."
5: Is valid because it refers to "some critics" and clearly follows from "inaccurate representation" to "straw man."

1 talks nothing about the actual theories, and so is obviously a circumstantial ad hominem, saying that "of course scientists would reject ID."

2 suggests guilt by association, claiming that if they display the ad then they are associated. On the other hand though, if the speaker was referring to the PUBLIC associating, it is valid. Its true meaning is ambiguous.

4 is a reductio ad Hitlerum, an association fallacy. It refers to Hitler, saying that because If Hitler then evil, If Hitler then Darwin, therefore If Darwin then evil, an illicit minor.

[marcos218]

Argument 2 is guilt by association.

The bank is showing X.
Person Y did X, but he also did Z (which is detestable).
Therefore, the bank supports Z.

which is guilt by association, unless I am mistaken.

Argument 3 is an appeal to popularity, or rather, unpopularity.

China does X.
Lots of people think X is bad.
Therefore, X is bad.

Just because people think something is so, does not make it so. So 3 is an appeal to popularity.