Video Transcript: Slippery Slope, False Dilemma, and Circular Argument

Henry - So we're back. So let's just dive into the slippery slope fallacy.  

Dr, Clouser - Right? This fallacy that anticipates the future in the worst possible  way says, Okay, well look, here, you're proposing this policy. But you know what, what would be next? What would be next would be this awful one. So why  should we go with this when, it's just going to if we give you that you're just  going to want the next. And, of course, the answer is not necessarily true that  I'm going to wanting the next step on the slope. And this is tricky, because  sometimes it is true. You're, you're risking, that things will get even worse. So  suppose we say, well, I don't want this tax to vote against me, because if I give it to you, then next year who don't want hike. I'm going to vote against it because  if I give it to you then next you're gonna want to tax these things, we've heard  these things. That's not a reason not to vote for this. Right? But, but it is a  legitimate concern. I may, I may say, Okay, I'm going to vote for this, but you  better known in advance, I'm not gonna vote for the next step. Because maybe  my opponent says, Neither would I, I'm not going to ask for that.  

Henry - Find families, you see that. You know, can I go out to go out? Blah, blah, blah.  

Dr. Clouser - Can I stay up till 11 o'clock? Then I'm going to want midnight.  

Henry - Right? Yeah. And they happen to the churches, you know, I have how  many times like idea come up. We've tried that before. And this happened. And  now if we try this now, this is for sure. gonna happen and worse. So you have  like a slippery slope, where we're headed down the slope? Right? Well, here's  the next one. false dilemma.  

Dr. Clouser - There's a classic example of this is, the classic example comes  from Plato, he raises this as a moral predicament in one of his dialogues, he  asked, is it the case that something is good. And that's why the gods love it, they love it because it is good. Or is the case that whatever the gods love is good,  because they love it. Now, the dilemma seems to be this in the one case, there's a standard of good that the gods didn't create, and have no control over it, let's  let's remove it from Plato's polytheism to God. Because the Christians thought  that this was a genuine dilemma, and I don't think it is. Let's phrase it about our  dilemma. Is it the case that what is good? Is what God loves, because it is  good? Or is something good? Because God loves it? Or we can say, command  that God loves this? Because Absolutely, it is good. And he has to love it  because it is good. Or is it that whatever is good is what God commands us to  do. And whatever is evil is what he says not to do. And the only reason that  they're good or evil is that he said not to do them? The reason I think this is a 

false dilemma is that it doesn't take into account the biblical idea of creation,  right? God calls into being a world, a universe that did not exist at all right? And  he creates it so that some things really are good. And some things really are  evil. His commandment to us is take the 10 commandments, His  commandments to us. reveal how He created the world. So good isn't good  independently of him it's good, because he made it that way. Right? But then it  isn't good only isn't good for us to obey it only because he said so, right. It's  good for us to obey it because that really is good. But he made it that way. And  the 10 commandments aren't making things good or evil. They're revealing to us how he already created us in the world, right?  

Henry - In some ways it's a subtle type of argument, a spot just sounds a lot of  things sound close,  

Dr. Clouser - Plato thought that that dilemma was genuine, that there's no third  option. And we just produced the third option. The standards are not  independent of God he created them too but then he reveals them to us. When  he commands us to obey him.  

Henry - that's very interesting. Now here's another one, circular arguments.  

Dr. Clouser - These can be very subtle and difficult to spot. Let's use an example that isn't subtle, and isn't difficult to spot. Suppose I were to give somebody an  argument that went for the conclusion. God exists This. Okay, the first premise is the Bible says God exists. Okay? Second premise is God oversaw the writing of  the Bible. The third premise is God can't lie, therefore God exists. In order for  me to know or believe the second premise, God oversaw the writing of the Bible, I have to already believe God exists. So that premise already assumes the  conclusion. Okay, and it can't be used to derive the conclusion. That makes it  circular. Right and the old timey word for this begs the question. We ask the  question, why do you believe in God, and you give those three answers? The  three premises as your answer. That's a very bad answer, that that argument  begs, it just leaves for the question all over again. Because when you put the  premise two it says God oversaw the writing of the Bible, you ask How do you  know that? Right, you have to already know God existed. Right? So you can't  use that as a, as a justification for the conclusion that God exists.  

Henry - Now, as a philosopher, this little side question, do you notice? Do you  notice? Logical fallacies are real time? I mean,  

Dr. Clouser - do you? I don't like to pick on anybody. But one day, I listened to  Glenn Beck on the radio. And he jammed more fallacies in the 15 minutes than I

have ever heard anybody do, right? Yes, you can hear them. And not only that,  I've told this to my students. And they've found that it's true. When you learn the  rules, not these things. These are all mistakes, ways to make mistakes. When  you're learning the legitimate rules of logic, and here's somebody following  them. As you listen to the argument you can do that follows Yeah, that's right.  You can, you can hear it. It's almost uncanny. When you get really good with the  rules. You can read through an argument and know right away that it's valid, or  it's not, even though you don't know all the steps of the proof, then you work it  out, you do the proofs, but you can you can just hear it, you can hear the validity or the invalidity, because the the rules have become part of the furniture of your  mind, and you will fly them. Even unconsciously,  

Henry - I took Latin. But I also took logic, and after a while, you can just feel  when you talk, if a premise is correct. I mean, like, like, generally, I don't think to  myself, A plus B equals C, or only would you say is true for you? Or do you  actually still saying  

Dr. Clouser - so much as the conclusion, the conclusion that the conclusion  follows from the premises? Yeah, I can just hear that or say that's not so? Or  sometimes it's a little confusing. I listen to an argument and somethings wrong.  right, but is it because the conclusion doesn't follow or is it? Because it begs the  question? Okay, so it doesn't matter, because the premise already assumed it  right. Or it could be even that the arguments inconsistent. There's a  contradiction somewhere.  

Henry - Give us real here, like, the premise and conclusion real quickly. So just  whet the appetite. Now we do a logic classes and you know, but whet the  appetite of how that works?  

Dr. Clouser - Well, if there are certain forms logical forms that are rules. So if we  have a rule that if P then Q. Okay. If that's true, if P implies Q, in other words, if  P is true, Q is the case I'll give an example. Okay, if it rains a sidewalk, the  sidewalk will get wet, okay. It rains. The sidewalk got wet, right. That's a  legitimate. Okay, but do it another way, and it isn't. If it rains, the sidewalk will get wet, The sidewalk's wet. Does that show it's raining? No, to the water, just right.  snowmelt, right 10 dogs, or whatever. There's all kinds of other ways to the  sidewalk to give wet so. That's a fallacy. Yes, it's called a firm antecedent. Right? So you don't want to be doing that. Right. So we we learned the rules that we  learned the mistakes you can make with the rules I used to draw the mistakes  on the board and then put a big circle around and horns on their heads. Tell the  students these are the bogus brothers. Don't be fooled by them. 

Henry - Good. Well, this was very good. I'm sure we're gonna learn more in our  next session.