| Audiatur Et Altera Pars |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Omission
>
Audiatur Et Altera Pars
|
Logical Fallacy of Audiatur Et Altera Pars / Failure to State Assumptions
The Logical Fallacy of Audiatur Et Altera Pars / Failure to State Assumptions occurs when a logical argument is stated without divulging the assumptions (things believed to be true without evidence) on which the argument is based. A deductive argument always requires a number of core assumptions or else Divine revelations. When assumptions are used, these assumptions are called premises, and are the assumptions the argument is built on. Premises are the reasons for accepting the conclusion. These premises may have been derived from previous reasoning that had its own premises. However, that reasoning also has premises. Unless something concrete is found, all premises are simply assumptions. They have zero truth value. Without Divine revelation, all human conclusions are based on assumptions. Eventually, truth must be based on something beyond an assumption. Assumptions are arbitrary unless they can be proven to be true, in which case, they are not really assumptions any more. They would be facts. The only way to prove anything to be true is through pure Divine revelation. (You can read more about this here.) Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Audiatur Et Altera Pars / Failure to State AssumptionsAll scientific theories are dependent on certain assumptions. When those theories are discussed, all of the assumptions and stories need to be disclosed and it must be admitted that the theory falls apart without them. If these assumptions and stories are not disclosed, then the discussion is irrational. Discussions of morality or ethics must be based on either assumptions or Divine revelation. Either source needs to be disclosed or the discussion is irrational. One of the problems is that most assumptions are buried and hidden. Assumptions happen naturally in the human mind without conscious effort. Your own assumptions are generally not something you think about. In fact, you are likely to think of them as being part of reality, which they are not. For this reason, you probably never consciously think about them or admit them. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionStacking the Deck Ambiguity Effect McNamara Fallacy Head in the Sand Suppression of the Agent Fading Affect Bias Unteachable Selective Refutation A-Priorism Ignoring Historical Example Overlooking Secondary Consequences Uncontrolled Factors Missing Link Moving the Goal Posts Gravity Game Demanding Impossible Evidence Unfalsifiability / Untestibility Invincible Ignorance Argument from Ignorance Ad Ignorantiam Question God of the Gaps Argument from Silence No True Scotsman No True Scientist Fallacy of Opposition Frozen Abstraction Falsified Inductive Generalization Argument from the Negative Accident Fallacy Reverse Accident Best-in-Field Abductive Fallacy Denialism Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification Very Simple Answer Reductionism Taboo Fallacy Recently Viewed |
