click here to learn more about being redeemed from sin and set free to serve God in spirit and in truth. click here to learn more about holiness click here to learn more about being changed into the same image click here to learn more about sowing and reaping click here to learn more about the free gift of righteousness. click here to learn more about how faith gives us access to grace and grace does the works. click here to learn more about faith and how it comes. click here to learn more about acknowledging Jesus click here to learn more about how God speaks Who will you listen to?  Click here to learn more. click here to learn more about the pattern of God. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for individuals, marriage, and family. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for the local church click here to learn more about the Church universal
SeekFind Logo            Home     >   Meaning     >   Christian Witness     >   Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies     >   Fallacies of Ambiguity     >   Innuendo

Logical Fallacy of Innuendo


Logical Fallacy of Innuendo / Implication

Innuendo is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The logical fallacy of innuendo, or implication, occurs when a conclusion is suggested to be true without directly stating the point. This is a fallacy because it is a deceptive tactic. Innuendo is generally used as a substitute for evidence. In other words, the innuendo technique is used as the only proof for a claim. It is often more persuasive than a straightforward statement because a clear statement is easier to evaluate for logical fallacies, to realize that a claim (implied) has no basis, no proof. Note that this is different from simply being unclear. What makes this a fallacy is that there is no evidence and the use of innuendo is a mechanism to hide the fact that there is no real evidence.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Innuendo / Implication

“Here tonight, we’re gonna have two stories and we can compare Mr. Ham’s story to a story from what I will call the story from the outside, from mainstream science.” ~Bill Nye, debating with Ken Ham

  1. "the story from the outside" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of innuendo, implying that there is a kind of inside group, almost a cult, that believes what God says through the Bible. Had Bill simply stated his implication it would be easy to evaluate. He would say something like this. "Ken Han has a little group of wacko followers. They are the only people in the world to read the Bible as written and believe that God speaks through the Bible." Of course, such a statement would be easy to identify as a lie. Thus, the use of innuendo.
  2. "Mr. Ham’s story" Nesting fallacies in this way makes them very difficult to analyze. Also, identifying the historical account that God tells us through Scripture as "Mr. Ham's story" continues the innuendo that implies that very few people believe God. It is a clever trick. In his opening sentence, Bill Nye used tactics that he continuously wove into his messages throughout the debate. By calling it “Mr. Ham’s story” rather than rationally dealing with the concept of creation, Bill Nye used a form of ad hominem fallacy, debating about a person or personality rather than rationally dealing with the issue at hand on its merits. In addition, Bill Nye wove in a plain folks fallacy throughout the debate and used several techniques to portray Ken Ham as unapproachable, isolated, and not a plain folks type of guy like good old Bill Nye is. The repetition of "Mr. Ham" worked to that end. None of this is directly stated. Everything is by innuendo.
  3. "the story from the outside, from mainstream science.” The very term, mainstream science implies there is a mainstream group and anyone who disagrees with what those folks say is the minority and should just fall in line with the old ideas. This censoring of disagreement within the scientific community was a difficult picture for Bill Nye to paint while still maintaining that Bill Nye’s definition of science is open to new ideas. However, Bill Nye did irrationally maintain both mutually exclusive views throughout the debate, which is the logical fallacy of internal inconsistency. He was plainly holding two mutually exclusive, conflicting, views at the same time.
  4. Bill Nye used the fallacy of misused statistics for the purpose of persuasion. Throughout the debate, Bill Nye’s main effort was to make those who follow Christ seem like the fringe of society (tactic of marginalizing), when, in fact, over 90% of Americans self-identify as Christians and about half of those take the Bible as it is written. This is both a fallacy of relevance, specifically, bandwagon (how does majority opinion affect reality?) and a fallacy of misused statistics. Since this is all by innuendo rather than direct statement, it is even less subject to challenge. So, there are two points of fallacy: Bill Nye implied that biblical Christianity is a fringe group and the atheistic/agnostic belief system is mainstream. Whether something is fringe or mainstream has no effect on reality, and a reasonable man would not have brought it up.


Last updated: Sep, 2014

Logical Fallacy of Innuendo

Main Menu







Toons & Vids



There are 53 sub-topics of "Fallacies of Ambiguity"

Logical Fallacy of Ambiguity

Logical Fallacy of the Barnum Effect / P. T. Barnum Effect / The Fallacy of Personal Validation / The Forer Effect

Logical Fallacy of Ambiguous Assertion

Logical Fallacy of Innuendo

Sly Suggestion Fallacy

Syntactic Ambiguity Fallacy / Structural Ambiguity / Grammatical Ambiguity / Amphiboly / Semantic Ambiguity / Semantical Ambiguity Fallacy

The Logical Fallacy Lexical Ambiguity


Shingle Speech

Use-Mention Error / UME

Double Entendre

Logical Fallacy of Misuse of Etymology

Logical Fallacy of Garden Path Ambiguity

Squinting Modifier Fallacy

Quantifier Fallacy / Quantifier Shift Fallacy

Illicit Observation Fallacy

Metaphorical Ambiguity Fallacy


Logical Fallacy of Equivocation / Bait and Switch / Amphiboly / Semantic Ambiguity / Type-Token Ambiguity / Vagueness

Redefinition Fallacy

Middle Puzzle Part Fallacy

Idiosyncratic Language Fallacy

Type-Token Ambiguity Fallacy

Fallacy of Modal Logic / Modal Scope Fallacy / Misconditionalization

Modal Fallacy / Modal Scope Fallacy

Scope Fallacy

Ambiguous Middle / Ambiguous Middle Term

Logical Fallacy of Hypnotic Bait and Switch

Definist Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Defining a Word in Terms of Itself

Socratic Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Defining Terms Too Broadly

Logical Fallacy of Defining Terms Too Narrowly

Logical Fallacy of Failure to Elucidate

Logical Fallacy of Persuasive Definition / Appeal to Definition / Appeal to the Dictionary / Definist Fallacy (type of) / Rhetorical Definition

Logical Fallacy of Composition / Exception Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Division / False Division / Ecological Fallacy / Ecological Inference Fallacy

Etymological Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Nominalization, Misnomer, Labeling

Logical Fallacy of Inference from a Label

Pigeonholing Fallacy / Ahistoric Fallacy

Category Mistake / Category Error

Logical Fallacy of the Conjunction Effect / Conjunction Fallacy

Disjunction Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Argument by Fast Talking / Information Overload / Bang-Bang-Bang

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Verbosity / Argumentum Verbosium

Logical Fallacy of Argument by Gibberish / Bafflement / Prestigious Jargon

Logical Fallacy of Confusing Contradiction with Contrariety

Logical Fallacy of Ambiguous Collective / Type-Token Ambiguity

Conceptual Fallacy

Anti-Concreteness Mentality Fallacy / Attributing Abstractness to the Concrete / Mistaking an Entity for a Theory / Mistaking Reality for an Assumptions

Butterfly Logic

The Logical Fallacy of Process-Product Ambiguity / Act-Object Ambiguity

Child Pages

Most Recently edited pages:

Answer to Critic

Appeal to Possibility

Circular Reasoning

Argument to the Future

Insignificant Cause

Word Magic

Love Between a Man and Woman


Colossians 2

Righteousness & Holiness

Don't Compromise


Proof by Atheism

Scriptures About Marriage

Genuine Authority

The Reason for Rejecting Truth

Witness on the Internet

Flaky Human Reasoning

How Do You Know?

15-minutes to Understand Logic

Featured Articles:

The Real Purpose of the Church

The Real Purpose of Life

From Glory to Glory

REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT

REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT

How to be Led by God

How to Witness

Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality

Holiness & Mind/Soul

Redemption: Free From Sin

Real Reality

Stories Versus Revelation

Understanding Logic

Logical Fallacies

Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?

How Can We Know Anything?

God's Word

God's Process

God's Pattern

Mind Designed to Relate to God

Answers for the Confused

Fossil Record Says: "Creation"

Avoid These Pitfalls

Public School's Religion

Twisting Science


Public School Failures

Twisting History

Put a Link To This Page on Your Site.
HTML Code:

Links: ~ Logical Fallacy of Innuendo
Logical Fallacy of Innuendo

How can we know anything about anything? That's the real question

more info: mouseover or click

The complexity of Gods Way understood in a single diagram
Obey your flesh and descend into darkness