logical fallacies utep tu quaqua look whose talking

LOGICAL FALLACIES UTEP TU QUAQUA LOOK WHOSE TALKING SKIN
LOGICAL FALLACIES UTEP TU QUAQUA LOOK WHOSE TALKING FULL

Kreeft highlights confusion of the use of “because” as part of the problem ( Kreeft, 81). Guilt must be proven and innocence defended just as in arguments. Even police know that motive alone does not convict people. It’s psychological reason (i.e., motivation for doing or saying something), but it is not logical reasons (i.e., argumentation and premises that lead to a conclusion supporting an idea or action). Racism, sexism, religion, and even criminal records can and will motivate, but motivation is not logical reason. To be relevant and not simply attack the person, the person’s origin or characteristics would need to be logically relevant. So, any reply that takes the form of “you say that because you’re a _” or “you say that because your background is _” most likely commits this fallacy. It may be convenient, it may be advantageous, but neither have anything to do with logic.” (Kreeft, 81)

“’You say that because you are a man.’ His being a man and his motive as a man may have absolutely nothing to do with the logic of the argument. Peter Kreeft gives a nice general explanation of how this works. It is called the “genetic fallacy” because it attacks the “suspicious psychological origins of the argument” (Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic, 81). The second fallacy is related because like the first, it attacks the person in a way that is irrelevant to the argument, but it is a bit trickier. Tu quequo is a form of ad hominem- It attacks the person and distracts from the original argument in question. Husband: “You also haven’t washed the dishes!”Ĭhristian: “You shouldn’t watch pornography.”Ī person’s character is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the original statement. Wife: “You haven’t changed the oil like I asked you!” What matters is whether Bill’s argument in question is self-refuting. It is irrelevant whether Bill has made self-refuting statements in the past, or whether he is a hypocrite. But Robert has chosen not to engage Bill’s argument and is accusing Bill of the same thing, rather than dealing with Bill’s argument. The problem is that Bill’s original accusation and argument have gone unaddressed. Robert is claiming that Bill is not in a position to criticize Robert’s own arguments, and thus says tu quoque, or “you do it too!” in reply to Bill’s accusations. So, Robert’s argument can be summarized as “you too make self-refuting statements.” Robert might also call Bill a hypocrite ( ad hominem) for pointing out Robert’s self-refuting statements. Robert fires back at Bill and points out other times when Bill has made self-refuting statements himself. Person 1 (Bill) accuses person 2 (Robert) of making a self-refuting statement. Two people are arguing over the existence of God. Basically, the situation looks like this. The first is officially named tu quoque, which is Latin for “you also.” We could also call this the “hypocrite” fallacy. Both are similar in nature, and both are fallacies of thought. I’ve heard them many times, read them many places, and have even received them personally. Sound familiar? These are two prominent accusations against Christianity and Christians.

LOGICAL FALLACIES UTEP TU QUAQUA LOOK WHOSE TALKING FULL

And they're usually invoked in ways that are clearly fallacious.“The church is full of hypocrites!” “The only reason you are a Christian is because you were raised as one!” Of course there's a larger question of what the Catholic doctrine actually is – but if a person is making a statement about a certain group of people and you are a member of the group, you might very well be in a position to falsify his claim on the basis of your experience.īut a person's identity and life experience often aren't relevant when talking about facts. I mean, if someone says to you, 'Catholics don't believe in hell', it's perfectly valid to resort, 'Actually my mom is a Catholic, and she believes in hell'. Now this isn't to say that a person's life experience is never relevant to a conversation it can be used to establish certain kinds of facts. And the fact that you think it might be is a problem. When talking about the data – that is, what is happening throughout a whole society – your life experience isn't relevant information.

LOGICAL FALLACIES UTEP TU QUAQUA LOOK WHOSE TALKING SKIN

' The color of your skin simply isn't relevant information. Getting a handle on these facts does not require one to say, 'As a black man, I know x, y, and z. When talking about violence, again, the facts are whatever they are – how many people got shot, how many died, what was the color of their skin, who shot them, what was the color of their skin. “You need an argument, and the nature of any argument is that its validity doesn't depend on who you are.

Logical fallacies utep tu quaqua look whose talking