Henry - So we're back. But this is our actual last session on logical fallacies, so  we've gone over them some of the major ones I know there's more gorgeously,  they're they're sort of major ones. So the first one is equivocation. Sorry, what  is?  

Dr. Clouser - In ordinary English, we often use this term to mean somebody's  lying. Okay. They equivocate in logic is used to mean you have shifted the  meaning of a term. And what happens is that you trick maybe yourself and  others into thinking that a certain conclusion is reached, when in fact, you've  shifted what you're talking about. And this can sometimes be very subtle and  difficult to spot. There's a famous example of  

Henry - this. Okay, so we're gonna go over  

Dr. Clouser - there. This is a proof that God exists. And it was offered by the  philosopher and mathematician, Rene Descartes. Okay. All right, his first  premise is one of I'm going to call PSR that stands for the principle of sufficient  reason. Okay, all right. And here's what it says. I'm lazy. So I just put the initials,  it says for everything, there must be a cause or explanation. For everything,  there must be must be cause or explanation. That's his first premise. Okay.  Second premise causes are always equal to or greater than their effect this is  why there's no perpetual motion machine for example, whatever causal energy  you put into it, you get either the same out or less or less the causes are greater than the effects. They're equal to or greater than all right. Now, premise three,  this is where the chart is going to grab. There exists in my mind, of backward  capitally in logically means exists. There exists in my mind an idea of infinity. I  should explain that Descartes doesn't mean something being infinitely big he  means infinitely perfect. So, this is the old idea that comes from Plato and  Aristotle of something having all the perfections that there are and only the  perfections. Descartes calling in an infinite being infinitely perfect. Whatever is a  perfection is being infinite. Goodness, love justice, mercy  

Henry - equivocated in logical terms, okay, something right, he's  

Dr. Clouser - going to equivocate with a conclusion. Now, the conclusion is  going to be three dots mean therefore, remember that remember, okay, now,  now try to follow this, if there exists in his mind and idea of infinity, according to  premise one, it has to have a causal explanation. Can't say it just popped there  all by itself. And so, what is PSR stands for everything there must be a cause for everything there must be a cause or explanation. So, there must be a cause or  explanation for the idea of infinity in his mind. But causes have to be either  equal to or greater than the effect, right? That means the cause would have to 

be infinite. So there exists not in my mind that there exists an infinite cause of  my idea of infinity. And if there's an infinite cause, that means there's something  real, that has all the perfections there are and only perfections and that is what  we hold. For everything, there has to be a cause or explanation, so there must  be a cause for explanation for his idea of infinity. The cause has to be at least  equal to the effect so the cause has to be infinite. there you go. There's an  infinite cause of my idea of faith. Now, this equivocation here is pretty solid, but  watch this, he's claiming that there has to be an infinite cause of this thing here.  His idea of infinity. right? For the idea of infinity is not itself infinite, right? That it  doesn't require an idea of the infinite idea, right? If the idea were infinite would  need an idea of the infinite cause but the idea of infinity isn't infinite. the idea  itself doesn't have all the perfections that are. It doesn't have any, right.  Therefore, it doesn't require an infinite cause. Right? Right. And this goes down  too, by the way, this was pointed out after he died, He didn't get a chance to fix  it. But, but nevertheless, that's the case of an equivocation, you shift idea of  infinity into into this idea, and turn the argument seems to work, but it doesn't.  

Henry - This is heavy duty philosophy. This is extra, you took this mini course.  But then you get like a world class philosopher. Well,  

Dr. Clouser - I thought that would be an interesting example. One.  Henry - What were some other examples of that might be more?  Dr. Clouser - So my head was complicated? 

Henry - Well, you know, I mean, sometimes I've seen so many changes, a  nuance of a definition, you know, or like, or they take a definition that there's a  you know, for the purposes of this, I'm going to the Old English understanding of this or something. Just a little  

Dr. Clouser - bit. And so, if the argument depends on the term, meaning the  same thing, right, and it doesn't, then you don't get a valid conclusion. You  haven't arrived the conclusion, legitimately. If they see this, again, in this case,  even if premise one is true, and we could argue about that, even if premise two  is true, and I think it probably is. And even if premise three is true, it does not  mean that four inclusion actually follows as required by one, two and 3. One,  two, amd three can be perfectly true. And four, false  

Henry - well get back to when Descartes wrote this, the scrutiny of whether  there is a God or not a God was not on the radar screen, like today.

Dr. Clouser – No, it was a big deal. And he's one of the guys who helped make it a big deal. He's the first figure in what we call modern philosophies. After the  Renaissance, he was born in 1595.  

Henry - Even in those days, like today, that would be I thought, like back in the  old days, and  

Dr. Clouser - they'll be very, very big deal. In fact, he's a renaissance thinker. So  a lot of people are like him, and thinking that what came before them is pretty  crude compared to what the Renaissance is reviving. And he invented analytic  geometry. And he invented Cartesian coordinates. And he's one of the brilliant  leaders of the new kind of thought. So what for him to produce an argument that proves beyond the doubt that God exists, that's a very big deal. Whereas  everybody else is all his contemporaries either produce a proof for themselves,  or tried to produce a proof that God didn't exist. Or, or that there could be no  proof.  

Henry - Now, so you in the, in the modern class are covering all this  

Dr. Clouser - modern philosophy, we start with the background. And here's the  medieval background. What happened in the 16th century, 16th centuries,  centuries, huge turmoil, everything that everybody thought was an authority they could rely on as being challenged. The Reformation is challenging the church.  Democracy is challenging monarchy. Everything was supposed to be an  authority is now up in the air. And so Descartes says, let's start all over of our  theory of knowledge. And let's start with what cannot be doubted, what has to be certain. Right? And that's where he came up with that famous remark. There.  That's one thing I can't I can't doubt that I exist if I think. 

Henry - right now to the adaptive challenge, rather than  

Dr. Clouser - he wants to take off from there and add other things to it. So by the time he gets to this stage, he's well past that he's certain that he exists. He's  certain that he thinks and he's certain that there are principles which appear to  him to be self evident, like the principle of sufficient reason, the causal principle,  and then he claims he has this idea in his mind of an infinite being 

Henry - question about Descartes. How do you react to that? Is that not a proof  of God's existence, even though some are faulty would you do?  

Dr. Clouser – The God conclusion doesn't follow. And anyway, I think that's the  wrong definition of God, I deny. This is really good diversity. I deny the right way 

to think of God is being with all and only perfections. And even if you think God  has all the perfections, he doesn't have only perfections. God relates to you and  me. That's not a perfection. God forgives us. God rescues and redeems us.  Those aren't perfections. So God was a lot more true about of God than just his  own personal perfection.  

Henry - Right? Well, good. So let's get back to our subject of appeal to Pity.  

Dr. Clouser - Why don't we go to make me do this work? Are you I'm old and  tired.  

Henry - Well, in my case I have to say you apply that too much here.  

Dr. Clouser - Or will you agree with me, don't you? I mean, after all, cut me a  break. I need support. That's an appeal to pity. It's appealing to somebody to  believe a certain conclusion. For some reason other than that it's true. That's  what all the fallacies are. They're always you're asking somebody to believe it  

not because it's true, but because it'll do this. 

Henry - I try and try and that's the best I can come up with. That's pretty  interesting. Okay, that we have one more than bandwagon fallacy.  

Dr. Clouser - wellness says what everybody believes this. We're all. We're all  agreeing. Don't you agree? The answer should not be yes. Just because  everybody else thinks so,  

Henry - Well, you know, sometimes on juries that, you know, the minister of the  years, it's hard to be picked on a jury and some of the jurists that were in various churches of mine talked about having a fight, the bandwagon fallacy. Because  there is like everyone has certain capital cases, but others there has to be a  complete agreement.  

Dr. Clouser - I got told that once, too. Well, we're all agreed and if you can agree to it then we can all go home. right, well, if that's true, get your pillows. The  bandwagon is not the reason to believe that someone's innocent or guilty, or any other conclusion if you don't believe the truth and conclusion, because that's the way the trend is going and, right? All the in people are agreeing. Those aren't  reasons to think something is true. You need to do reasons for its truth.  

Henry - Right. And there's a lot you can do theologically, and we talked for about another class about you know, science and Genesis and bandwagon would be  in one unreasoning. But then there's another reason that could be true. But, but 

in likewise, if another reading became accepted, you'd still have to be careful  always watch the bandwagon, be convicted, and seen the truth for the merits of  itself. 

Dr. Clouser - Yes, there has to be the truth for reasons.  

Henry - That's good. Well, you know, we have had a beautiful, like fallacies class here. And it's been fun. Dr. Clouser. I always enjoy reviewing them. I remember  back when I first started philosophy back in 1980, '80 was when I took my first  philosophy class. And I think logic was like, the first or the second class, I'm not  sure. I remember at times, evaluating how many things in my own life. I was  doing to do logical fallacies without intentionally mean to do it.  

Dr. Clouser - Well, that's my reminiscences a little different, I first taught the  course in symbolic logic for Rutgers University, in the fall of 1965. That's a long  time.  

Henry - So So for all of you. This mini class opened your eyes to a few things,  reminding you of a few other things. But hopefully, it went whetted your appetite, to you know, to maybe like take logic, and learn more in the more clear about  loving others. Really, in the end. That's what this is about. Because we want to  be clear, we want to be transparent and honest. We want our thinking, to be  clear, and we don't want to manipulate somebody even unintentionally. So  thanks so much, Dr. Clouser and I'm excited that you get to. I have been excited that you've been asked this class and I really appreciate that.



Last modified: Friday, October 13, 2023, 8:10 AM