Logical Fallacy of Context Imposition

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 regression, 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. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Context imposition 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.

The Logical Fallacy of Context Imposition occurs when argument is made from one’s own position without acknowledging the existence of other possibilities. This is an attempt to impose one’s own context on another person.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Context Imposition

Rocky: “I know that Jesus Christ exists because I know Him. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can test it out. Anyone who sincerely prays to Him with a respectful and submissive attitude and an open mind to Him does eventually find Him. You might have to exercise a little patience, but I urge you to give it a try.”

Sandy: “Look. Jesus doesn’t exist. I know it and you know it. You are just being insane. How anti-intellectual can you be?!” 

Rocky: “The fact is that God says that you and every other person knows that He exists. The basis of that statement is Divine revelation. What is the basis of your claim.”

Sandy: “The basis of my claim is that there is no evidence for God. That is basic. Everyone needs to know that.” 

Here is an example that shows the difference. Rocky doesn’t try to impose his own experience on Sandy, but he instructs Sandy as to how Sandy can check it out. On the other hand, Sandy tries to impose his worldview and uncheckable assumption onto Rocky.

Sandy: “Naturalism is a fact. Everyone knows that.”

Rocky: “Do you have any evidence that there is no spiritual realm.”

Sandy: “It's scientific. It's obvious.” 

Rocky: “Can you explain the steps of the scientific experiment that verifies Naturalism.”

Sandy: “That's easy. I have never seen any leprechauns or zombies.” 

Sandy is convinced of something but is unable to explain why. This is because of Sandy's worldview. Sandy's worldview (paradigm/filter/fake-reality) seems more real to him than real reality. Whatever is in any person's worldview seems to be self-evident. It seems to be reality, so it acts as a filter to keep out conflicting observations. When a person's worldview is contradicted in any way, the contradiction will seem bazaar and unreal. The tendency, then, is to reject the conflict and keep the worldview. It is very difficult to overcome a worldview. Pointing out conflicts with reality may work, but not right a way. Pointing out that the worldview is in conflict with itself may help, but not right away. Ad hoc hypotheses are used as rescuing mechanisms to save worldviews from destruction. Most people will cut off conversations and refuse to think about their own self-conflicting worldviews or parts of their worldviews that are not in harmony with real reality.