Cognitive biases - the fallacy of the "True Believer"

[TBRS1]

@Hypnalis I'm naturally good at logic so I assume it comes naturally to everyone. I blame poor logic (which I agree is very common) on bad teaching and people allowing their emotions to get in the way.

I just want to point out that there is a big difference between the Appeal to Authority Fallacy and Appeal to Heaven (which is not a fallacy).

Example of Appeal to Authority Fallacy:
"The scientific community says autism is a genetic condition. Therefore, it is genetic."
Why it's a fallacy: The opinion of an authority doesn't prove that something is true (authorities can and often have been wrong). The conclusion may be true, but the reasoning used to arrive at that conclusion is flawed.

Example of Appeal to Heaven:
"God ordered me to kill my children. Therefore, I didn't do anything wrong."
Not a fallacy: God (as the person making the statement understands the term) can't be wrong. Therefore, it's sound, logical reasoning.

The Appeal to Authority relies on flawed logical reasoning. The Appeal to Heaven (in the example used) relies on sound logic resulting in an inaccurate conclusion due to a flawed belief, not an error of logic.

The appeal to heaven is a logical fallacy. Neitzsche deal with this specific claim (either in The Genealogy of Morals or Beyond Good and Evil - can't remember which).

The reasoning goes like this (I'm going to condense it some):

There is no conclusive proof that god (or gods) exist, nor is there conclusive proof that it or they don't exist.

If god exists, is there conclusive proof that god talks to people?

No.

Assuming god exists, is there conclusive proof that the voice telling you to kill your children really is god?

No.

This goes on for a while, but in the end, it is clear that the person is accepting an entire series of assertions as true, based on what the person chooses to believe, rather than via a series of provable true assertions.

Believing a thing to be true through choice, without actual evidence that it is, is illogical.

Being illogical, appeals to heaven are logical fallacies.

 

[Matthias]

The appeal to heaven is a logical fallacy. Neitzsche deal with this specific claim (either in The Genealogy of Morals or Beyond Good and Evil - can't remember which).

The reasoning goes like this (I'm going to condense it some):

There is no conclusive proof that god (or gods) exist, nor is there conclusive proof that it or they don't exist.

If god exists, is there conclusive proof that god talks to people?

No.

Assuming god exists, is there conclusive proof that the voice telling you to kill your children really is god?

No.

This goes on for a while, but in the end, it is clear that the person is accepting an entire series of assertions as true, based on what the person chooses to believe, rather than via a series of provable true assertions.

Believing a thing to be true through choice, without actual evidence that it is, is illogical.

Being illogical, appeals to heaven are logical fallacies.

"Appeal to Heaven" is not a fallacy because fallacies concern whether the logic/reasoning of an argument is true, not whether the premises are true. The statement "God ordered/told me..." is a premise. An invalid premise makes the argument invalid but doesn't say anything about the logic used to support the conclusion. In the example I used, the logic is sound. If the premise is true, the conclusion is always true. Therefore, "Appeal to Heaven" is not a fallacy.

Your example with Neitzsche is an entirely different and much more complex argument altogether. It concerns whether various premises support the conclusion that God exists or doesn't exist.

 

[TBRS1]

"A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others."

"Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others."

Every definition of logical fallacy is roughly the same, and they differ from yours. You seem to be using a definition of logical fallacy which does not match the standard definition, imposing specific conditions that are not normally a part of the accepted definition.

Changing from a standard definition to a idiosyncratic definition in order to make one's point is an example of the fallacy commonly known as "shifting the goalpost."

Your example of the woman who believes god is telling her to do stuff is (ironically) "the fallacy fallacy" (an argument based on false, unproven, or unprovable claims, but is logically coherent).

 

[Matthias]

"A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion. People may commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, due to poor reasoning, or intentionally, in order to manipulate others."

"Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others."

Every definition of logical fallacy is roughly the same, and they differ from yours. You seem to be using a definition of logical fallacy which does not match the standard definition, imposing specific conditions that are not normally a part of the accepted definition.

Your example is "the fallacy fallacy" (an argument based on false claims, but is logically coherent).

It appears you don't understand what you're reading and conflating logical fallacies (errors in logical reasoning) with fallacies in general (which can refer to any false notion or statement). That's understandable as logic is not an easy topic for everyone to learn. The first definition you quoted is correct and exactly the same as how I defined it.

Definition: A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion.

Notice the flaw lies in the the reasoning (leap of logic), not the statements that make up the argument. It has to do with whether the premises support the conclusion, not whether the premises are true.

If you're really interested in this topic, I recommend consulting a textbook in logic or taking a free online course on Coursera or another site. You'll get much more accurate information compared to random websites along with explanations that make it easier to understand.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Matthias @TBRS1

I looked up "Appeal to Heaven", and it's not what I though (so e.g. the example wasn't correct).

Technically it's still a fallacy, but it's related to an undemocratic "Catch-22" situation, so I was mostly wrong, and I no longer think it's close enough to the usual usage of "Appeal to Authority" for it to be considered a particular case of it..

"Appeal to Heaven" is a phrase from John Locke's writings that expresses the right of revolution, suggesting that when people are denied their rights, they can seek justice from a higher authority, such as God. This concept was notably used during the American Revolution, symbolized by the Pine Tree Flag

I'm not from the US, so while I've heard of Locke OFC, and agree that the "Divine Right of Kings" deserved criticism, I had no idea the concept of an "Appeal to Heaven" was significant for the American Revolution.

The "Catch-22" is that they were disobeying their "Rightful King", whose authority came from "a higher power". according to the usual "God, King, Country" principle
So not only were they breaking secular law, but it would also have been sinful to plot against the Crown.

I suppose they needed a convincing justification to persuade some of their god-fearing fellow citizens to join their movement.

@TBRS1
Sorry for the lack of solidarity, but I have to go with the facts

 

[TBRS1]

It appears you don't understand what you're reading and conflating logical fallacies (errors in logical reasoning) with fallacies in general (which can refer to any false notion or statement). That's understandable as logic is not an easy topic for everyone to learn. The first definition you quoted is correct and exactly the same as how I defined it.

Definition: A logical fallacy is an argument that may sound convincing or true but is actually flawed. Logical fallacies are leaps of logic that lead us to an unsupported conclusion.

Notice the flaw lies in the the reasoning (leap of logic), not the statements that make up the argument. It has to do with whether the premises support the conclusion, not whether the premises are true.

If you're really interested in this topic, I recommend consulting a textbook in logic or taking a free online course on Coursera or another site. You'll get much more accurate information compared to random websites along with explanations that make it easier to understand.

Nope. I'm done. You are now getting dangerously close to an ad hominen attack.

It is most definitely condescending.

 

[Matthias]

Nope. I'm done. You are now getting dangerously close to an ad hominen attack.

It is most definitely condescending.

Nothing I wrote was even remotely condescending nor anywhere close to an ad hominen attack. It's unfortunate you took it that way. I was only trying to help.