| Formally Correct Fallacy |
Formally Correct Fallacy / According to the Rules Fallacy (type of)The formally correct fallacy is a formal fallacy that covers up the problem when 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 Formally Correct Fallacy / According to the Rules Fallacy (type of) occurs when it is thought that logic is sound because it is valid. Sound logic has true premises and a true conclusion. The formally correct fallacy results from two errors in thinking. One is an ambiguity of context regarding the kind of logic. The other is an ambiguity regarding how truth can be known. Some teachers of logic give the impression that a formally valid argument, that is, a set of statements that follow a valid form, is necessarily true. Part of this problem may stem from symbolic logic, e.g. Boolean algebra, since in these, the word, "true," is simply a "logical state." This definition for the word, “true,” is so distant from the normal usage of the word that it is a homonym that is both a homograph and a homophone. It sounds the same and is spelled the same, but it is a different word with a different meaning altogether. Examples of the Formally Correct Fallacy / According to the Rules Fallacy (type of)
The syllogistic form is correct, but the premises are not true. What would make anyone think that God is not patient enough to allow for a world that takes several thousand years to resolve and bring into perfection? To God, a thousand years is as a day. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionAffirming the Consequent Commutation of Conditionals Affirming a Disjunct Denying the Antecedent Illicit Process Illicit Major Illicit Minor Invalid form using All Invalid form using \"Some\" Unwarranted Contrast Denying a Conjunct Positive Conclusion from Negative Premises Illicit Affirmative Existential Instantiation Exclusive Premises Fallacy of Four Terms Fallacy of Necessity Fallacy of False Conversion Illicit Contraposition Hooded Man Fallacy Confusing \"if\" with \"if and only if\" Improper Transposition Invalid form using \"OR\" Confusion of \"Necessary\" with a \"Sufficient\" Condition Galileo Argument (Formal) Four Terms Fallacy Recently Viewed |
