| Unwarranted Contrast |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Invalid Form
>
Unwarranted Contrast
|
Logical Fallacy of Unwarranted Contrast / Some Are-Some Are NotUnwarranted contrast 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 Logical Fallacy of Unwarranted Contrast / Some Are-Some Are Not occurs when it is assumed that because some of one thing have a certain characteristic, then some of that thing must not have that characteristic or vice versa. INVALID FORM “Some A are B. Therefore, Some A are not B.” “Some A are not B. Therefore, Some A are B.” There are times when you can only know about some people, places, or things. In those cases, you can observe those people, places, or things and make a statement that is true for all of them. Barring Divine revelation, you can only rationally make a statement about some. You cannot examine all, so you make a statement about some. If you have no evidence to show an exception, then you cannot assume that there is or is not at least one exception. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Unwarranted Contrast / Some Are-Some Are Not
This conclusion is actually true. The logic, however, is faulty. We don't know that some Christians don't follow Christ because we know that some Christians do follow Christ. We know that some Christians don't follow Christ because some of those Christians make it obvious that they are not following Christ.
The logic is faulty, and the conclusion is not known.
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionFormally Correct Fallacy Affirming 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\" 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 |
