Assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
"I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."
Assumption that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, the conclusion must also be false.
A claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion.
Assuming that something which is true of a thing must also be true of some or all of its parts (reverse of the Fallacy of Composition).
Ignorance and Enlightenment
The enemy has used both ignorance and “enlightenment” (or the perception of it) to mislead many.
Even thechurch has been used many times to lead people into darkness – or to keep them there.
In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church capitalized on the ignorance of the laity regarding the truth of the Bible – deceiving and exploiting them for sordid gain. The heart and truth of God was greatly misunderstood, if it was known at all.
And then came an “Age of Enlightenment”, in which God was “reasoned” by some out of existence.
The enemy is clever, and uses the trend of the day to deceive people.
Unfortunately, we sometimes seem to be less clever, either following the trend of the day for the sake of following it, or clinging so tightly to tradition that we miss the truth.
View original post 3,503 more words
Assuming that something true of part of the whole must also be true of the whole.
"I shall never be ashamed of citing a bad author if the line is good." - Seneca
The consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. Example: "Sue is lethargic and has poor hygiene habits, therefore, she is depressed." (In other words, Sue is depressed because she's lethargic and has poor hygiene habits.) Here, the consequences (lethargy, poor hygiene) of the phenomenon (depression) are being claimed as the root …
Ever been stuck in an argument, knowing that the other person's logic is faulty, but not knowing exactly why or how?