Logical Fallacies in the LTJ Article “A Case for the Ordination of Women” (pp.37-50)

A fallacy is a general type of appeal or category of argument that resembles good reasoning, but uses false logic or unclear reasoning to make its point (see glossary at the end). It doesn’t necessarily mean that the point is false, just that it isn’t proved, logically. The LTJ article “A Case for the Ordination of Women and Men” (pp.37-50) contain a plethora of logical fallacies. Given that this article is entitled a “case”, meaning a class or instance assumed under a rule of logic, it is important to determine if the case is in fact proved and if the conclusions drawn from the case logically follow.

Below is a list of quotes from the article to which are attached questions regarding the logical consistency of the stated argument with the fallacy or fallacies included in brackets. It should be noted that although these fallacies have the appearance of mutual exclusivity, there is some overlap in the various types. For example, misrepresenting the facts and straw man are both misrepresentation fallacies that afflict the minor premise of an argument, both of which have to do with misrepresentation (either deliberate or inadvertent due to poor research) as a result of incorrect information. It should also be noted that certain fallacies go by a variety of names, depending on the logician who coins them. For the most part, I am following Bruce Thompson’s categorisations, which can be found at the website:

http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/intro_fallacies.asp

1. “The world that has changed dramatically in the last fifty years. Therefore: “Inevitably the question has arisen about the role of women in the church.” (p.37).

· The unspoken minor premise is that the church is part of the world that has changed dramatically in the last fifty years. This premise needs to be challenged. The church is “in” the world but not “of” the world. (misrepresenting the facts, uncontrolled factors).

· Given that the church is not of the world, then it is not “inevitable” that the role of women in the church need be questioned as a result of the changes in women’s roles in the world. (petitio principii).

2. “Therefore…the LCA faces new questions, compelling it to re-examine its teachings in the light of the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions.” (p.37).

· Because the minor premise is false (or at least unproved), the result does not necessarily follow (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

3. “The re-examination has led a number of members of the LCA-NZ to the conviction that it is right for the church to ordain women.” (p.37).

· So what? (uncharacteristic sample, false analogy).

4. “Some parts of the church began this process of re-examination quite some time ago.” (p.37). [N.B. Then follows a series of examples of church bodies that have, in the light of their re-examination, decided to ordain women].

· Doesn’t this negate or at least call into question the significance of the “last fifty years” in Point #1?

· Presumes that the church has never been engaged in any form of casuistry. (distributive fallacy).

· So what? (anecdotal evidence, special pleading).

5. “Even though the churches that belong to the International Lutheran Council do not ordain women, most Lutheran World Federation churches do.” [Footnote 1: “It could be argued that eighty percent of the world’s Lutherans belong to synods which include both men and women in ordained ministry.”] (p.37).

· So what? (ad verecundiam).

· If only “most” of the churches of the LWF ordain women, who are those who do not, and why?

· Footnote 1 is an ad populum fallacy.

6. “The LCA voted to allow women delegates to synod in 1981 and in 1989 approved the distribution of communion by women.” (p.37).

· These decisions, though they affect the role of women in the church, do not have anything to do with ordination per se. (fallacy of diversion)

· So what? (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

7. “Following a decision of the CTICR in 1999 ‘that on balance scripture and theology permit the ordination of women’, the General Pastors Conference and the General Synod of 2000 were evenly divided on the subject. These developments require that the question be given full attention within the LCA-NZ.” (p.37).

· I thought the CTICR didn’t make decisions but recommendations?

· How was this “decision” reached? Simple majority? Two-thirds majority?

· What are the implications of this “decision” for the church?

· What does “on balance” mean? (ad populum; ad verecundiam, uncharacteristic sample)

· The concluding “requirement” does not necessarily follow. (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

· Given that the conclusion does follow, what does “full attention” mean? Is the church not already giving the question full attention? How long does the church need to give “full attention” to this question?

8. “As we seek the will of God for the role of women in the church, it is appropriate to consider the witness of scripture as a whole. Yet there are other passages which say that a woman must be silent in church and a woman should not teach or have authority over a man.” (p.37).

· “Scripture as a whole” vs. “other passages”—false antithesis.

· What is meant by “scripture as a whole”? Where is this principle outlined in the paper, “Hermeneutics and the Ordination of Women”?

9. “The bible tells the stories of many women who actively work for the kingdom of God, stories in which women have authority over men, and stories in which women proclaim the gospel of Jesus.” (p.37).

· Fallacy of special pleading (only examples that advanced their case were included).

· The rejection of women’s ordination is not the rejection of women “actively working for the kingdom of God”, “having authority over men” in the social order, or “proclaiming the gospel” according to their station/vocation. (straw man).

10. “When the prophet Miriam leads her people in a song of praise after they have crossed the Red Sea, she is leading them in worshipping God.” (p.38).

· The biblical text says nothing of the sort. It says that Miriam sang “to all the women” (v.20), not that she “led her people”. (equivocation, fallacy of diversion).

· Even if she did lead all the people “in a song of praise”, it does not follow that “she is leading them in worshipping God”. (post hoc ergo propter hoc, inductive hyperbole).

· Even if “she is leading them in worshipping God”, it does not follow that therefore women can be ordained to the public ministry of the gospel. (post hoc ergo propter hoc, uncharacteristic sample, inductive hyperbole, false analogy).

11. To say that Deborah represented the “very presence of God” (p.38) to Barak, is to say no more or less than that what we would say about any person, male or female, who has been duly elected to a position of political or ecclesiastical authority (Romans 13:1-2).

· Where in the text does it say that Deborah was “worship leader”? (misrepresenting the facts).

· Given the unproved presumption that she was “worship leader”, it does not follow that women today can be ordained to the public ministry of the gospel (post hoc ergo propter hoc, uncharacteristic sample, inductive hyperbole, false analogy).

12. “[Huldah’s] right to speak with divine authority is not questioned.” (p.38).

· Has anyone ever questioned it? (straw man)

· That she speaks with divine authority does not mean: a) that she was ordained to the priesthood (fallacy of diversion), or b) that we can use her example to ordain women to the priesthood (ministry) today. (post hoc ergo propter hoc, uncharacteristic sample, inductive hyperbole, false analogy).

13. “Every time Mary’s song is sung or read in church to this day her words lead us in worship as they proclaim to us the great acts of God.” (p.39).

· To say that Mary’s words “lead us in worship” is not the same as saying that Mary leads us in worship. (false analogy).

· The assumption behind this sentence (that since Mary leads worship women can be ordained) is a petitio principii fallacy. This is what needs to be proved.

14. “A woman [Mary] carries the incarnate Word into the world. Never has a man been charged to take the body and blood of our Lord in such a dramatic manner, and, unlike Mary, never has a man been called upon to serve as the vessel through whom God offers Jesus to the world so uniquely for its life and salvation.” (p.39).

· The whole argument is a fallacy of diversion as well as an example of inductive hyperbole.

· For women to follow Mary’s example would be for them to bear Christ in their wombs as Mary did, not for them to be ordained to the holy Ministry. (false analogy, post hoc ergo propter hoc).

· The fact that Mary served as “the vessel through whom God offered Jesus to the world” was so “unique”, means that it was not an event from which we can draw general conclusions. (uncharacteristic sample).

15. “So much does Jesus approve of his anointing by [an unnamed woman] (the role of a prophet) and her spending her life in his service (the role of a true disciple) that he foretells that ‘what she has done will be told in memory of her’ (Mark 14:9).” (p.39).

· The question before us is not whether women can, and have been, “prophets” or “true disciples” but whether they can be ordained to the public office of the minsitry. (petitio principii, post hoc ergo propter hoc).

16. “Jesus, like the writers of the Old Testament…freely employs feminine imagery for God’s activity in the world.” (p.39).

· So what? (non causa pro causa).

17. “If serving is Jesus’ model of ministry, culminating in his serving the world by his death on the cross (Mark 10:45), it is significant for the public ministry of the church that the gospels portray so many women as servants of their Lord.” (p.40).

· Service, like leadership, is a necessary, but not sufficient, constituent of the ministry. (fallacy of diversion).

· Luther reminds us that the Christian “is a dutiful servant of all, subject to all” (“The Freedom of the Christian”). Service is the outward expression of all Christian love (Gal 5:13).

· Furthermore, St. Paul says that there are “varieties of service” (1 Cor 12:5). Not all service falls under the purview of the public ministry of the gospel. (misrepresenting the facts, post hoc ergo proper hoc).

· How does this argument (from service) fit the previous arguments (from position of leadership and from authority)?

18. “[The Samaritan woman] alone in John’s gospel does what Jesus, in the high priestly prayer, prays that his disciples will do, namely, lead people to faith in him through preaching the word (John 17:20,21).” (p.40).

· The distinction in Scripture between “public” and “private” preaching is not the distinction between “preaching to many” and “preaching to one”, but “authorised preaching”, of those called to the divine office (Rom 10:15) and “individual preaching” that all Christians do by virtue of their priestly office (1 Pt 2:9). (misrepresenting the facts, inductive hyperbole).

19. “Jesus commands Mary Magdalene to proclaim his resurrection to the disciples…Jesus entrusts to Mary Magdalene the greatest kingdom message ever, with the result that she became known in the early church not only as the apostle to the apostles but the apostle of the apostles, the pre-eminent apostle.” (p.40).

· As above.

· Who in the early church called her “apostle to/of the apostles” and what did they mean by these terms? (anecdotal evidence).

· Even if latter statement is true, Mary was clearly not chosen to fill Judas’ office (Acts 1:20, 21) so she was not an “apostle” in the same sense as the other twelve. (hasty generalisation, false analogy).

20. “Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:16-18—Pentecost prophets, both men and women.” “Philip’s four daughter, Christian prophets.”(p.41).

· The prophetic office and the apostolic office are not the same thing. Not all proclamation is public preaching. (false analogy, uncharacteristic sample, post hoc ergo propter hoc).

21. “Women like Phoebe, Junia, and Priscilla.” (p.41).

· None of these women were ordained to the apostolic ministry. (false analogy).

22. “It is undisputed that the case for women’s ordination cannot be based on biblical or historical precedent alone, just as the case for the male only pastorate cannot be based on the precedent of the disciples being male or the church’s history of a predominantly male clergy.” (p.42).

· Is this “undisputed”? (petitio principii).

· Why can’t “the case for the ordination of women” be based on biblical or historical precedent alone? This seems to contradict the theological axiom sola scriptura as well as the hermeneutical principle, regula fidei. (misrepresenting the facts).

· There is no logical correlation between these two statements. (post hoc ergo propter hoc, fallacy of diversion).

· Why can’t the case for the male only pastorate “be based on the precedent of the disciples being male”? (petitio principii).

· Why can’t the case for the male only pastorate “be based on the precedent of the church’s history of a predominantly (sic) male clergy”? (petitio principii).

· When, in church history (besides the heretical sects), has the church had anything other than a male only pastorate?

23. “Knowing that precedent plays only a supporting role in such debates…” (p.42).

· Surely a supporting role is a legitimate role and, if so, one that needs to be addressed? (under reporting the facts).

24. “But apart from the urgency of examining those two brief texts more closely in their historical setting and according to their pastoral and liturgical intention, it is also vital that attention be paid to the many texts that show women playing a no lesser or different role from men.” (p.42).

· This is a clear case of equivocation and hasty generalisation. The texts above do not show “women playing no lesser or different role from men” with respect to the priestly office (in the Old Testament) and/or the apostolic office (in the New Testament). This is also a case of uncharacteristic sample and inductive hyperbole by not referring to those texts which speak of the institution and administration of the pastoral office.

· The suggestion of urgency implies that the church has until now been remiss in examining these passages in such a thorough and systematic way. (fallacy of diversion).

25. “Having considered the wide range of kingdom work undertaken by women in both the Old and New testaments, we now turn to the question of how to interpret Paul’s directions.” (p.43).

· As with the examples in question, this does not logically follow (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

26. “The confessions state that it is proper to follow St. Paul’s worship instructions ‘for the sake of love and peace’, but that if people are not offended by doing things differently, then it is not a sin to do so.” (p.43).

· The Confessions speak about those things neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture (adiaphora). The prohibition of women from the pastoral office, on the other hand, is scripturally commanded (1 Cor 14:37). (misrepresenting the facts, false analogy).

· What about the people who are “offended by doing things differently”? How are these to be addressed pastorally?

27. “[The confessions] state that if people are not offended, or if congregational harmony is not upset, then we do not have to insist on the letter of the law. In fact, such insistence burdens consciences unnecessarily.” (p.43).

· This is a clear misrepresentation of the facts of the Confessional position. If logically followed, any “law” (such as adultery, for example), can be negated, so long as there is congregational harmony and no offence taken.

28. “In relation to 1 Corinthians 14:34,35, those who argue for the ordination of men only apply the guidance of the Confessions selectively.” (p.43).

· The following statement: “those who argue for the ordination of men only apply the guidance of the Confessions selectively” is unsupported by evidence (petitio principii, straw man).

· The Confessions are selective in that they address different issues under different articles. (misrepresenting the facts).

29. “The Confessions are clear. Not all of Paul’s worship instructions can be applied literally in situations for which they were not intended. Paul’s concern throughout chapter 14…is that the gospel be proclaimed clearly in an orderly setting so that people may be brought to faith and built up in the faith of Christ. His prohibition of women’s speaking must be viewed in that light.” (p.44).

· The question at issue is not “worship instructions” per se but worship instructions in the light of the command of the Lord (1 Cor 14:37) and the divine institution of the Office of the Ministry. (inductive hyperbole).

· The Confessions are not addressing the Office of the Ministry in the passages referred. (false analogy).

30. “Clearly [Paul] is not telling women always to be silent in worship, because they were allowed to pray and prophesy.”(p.44).

· The LCA has never said that women must “always be silent in worship”. (straw man, misrepresenting the facts).

31. “Those who should be silent are those who are behaving in a manner that is disorderly and disruptive.” (p.44).

· This is not what the text says. (equivocation, misrepresenting the facts).

32. “All attempts to discover the nature of that disruptive behaviour that are not drawn from the text itself remain purely speculative. The text proper tells us that while others were leading in worship, the women were asking disruptive questions, thereby acting insubordinately…” (p.44).

· Assumes what it is seeking to prove (petitio principii).

· This statement contradicts what was said earlier in the paper: “It is undisputed that the case for women’s ordination cannot be based on biblical or historical precedent alone.” Why is it that the case for women’s ordination cannot be based on biblical precedent alone, but that “all attempts to discover the nature of that disruptive behaviour” must be “drawn from the text itself”?

33. “Luther too advises extreme caution when applying the word of God to today’s church. [Quote].” (p.44).

· The quote is from Luther’s writing on “How Christians Should Regard Moses”. Luther is not addressing the issue of “cultural application” of the law, but the distinction between those laws which applied to the Jews alone (and which were abolished at the coming of Christ), and those which are applicable to all people of all time. (misrepresenting the facts, false analogy).

34. “Those who promote ordination for men only appear to apply the direction given in our Confessions selectively.” (p.44).

· This applies not only to every one of the founding fathers of the LCA, but to every Lutheran church that refuses to ordain women. (ad hominem, misrepresenting the facts).

· The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the selective application of the Confessions. (straw man).

35. “Having understood Paul’s concerns and applied the pastoral guidance of the Confessions, advocates of ordination for men only then leave the guidance of the Confessions to one side and insist that Paul’s direction on who may speak and not speak must stay in place for all time, in all places, as if that were his major concern.” (p.45).

· Fails to address the real issue. (misrepresenting the facts, straw man).

· To say that “advocates of ordination for men only…leave the guidance of the Confessions to one side” is to attack the credibility not only of their argument but of their pastoral and theological integrity. (ad hominem).

36. “1 Timothy 2:8-15. To put it briefly, verses 13 and 14 provide the key to understanding. Like Eve in the garden of Eden, poorly instructed regarding the prohibition concerning the tree of knowledge, the women in Ephesus were poorly instructed in the Christian faith and were easy prey for the heretical teachers who had infiltrated the church at Ephesus.” (p.45).

· Eve’s ignorance is an unsubstantiated presupposition (petitio principii).

· The text does not speak of Eve’s ignorance but her deception. (misrepresenting the facts).

· It does not follow that, like Eve, the women in Ephesus were “poorly instructed” nor that they were therefore “easy prey” to false teachers and teachings. (speculative evidence, post hoc ergo propter hoc).

37. “The Confessions are clear that God has ‘instituted the office of the ministry’ (AC 5), and that implies people as office holders. But AC 5 immediately goes on to make the point that the article is primarily concerned about what is done rather than who is doing it.” (p.45).

· This is the false dichotomy, which leads to a “functional” view of the ministry, held by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. It is rejected by DSTO II D1 (c) where reference is made, not merely to functions, but to “the special office instituted by Christ” (3.1).

· To suggest that “what is done” can be distinguished over against “who is doing it” is to propose a docetic understanding of the Office of the Ministry. (heresy).

38. “The validity and efficacy of the sacraments rest on the power of the word of God, not on the authority, the quality, the gender or even the faith of a person.” (p.46).

· This is true. However it does not follow that therefore the authority, quality, gender, or faith of the person administering the sacraments is of no importance to God or to the Church. (misrepresenting the facts, speculative evidence).

39. “The ministry is not nullified by the immoral or cowardly character of the minister.” (p.46).

· It is, however, brought into disrepute, as is the whole church of God. (underreporting the facts).

· It is certainly not something we should allow, if known.

40. “If the ministry is not rendered invalid and the means of grace are not rendered non-efficacious in the case of immoral clergy, how much more does the same thing apply in the case of female office holders?...If the validity and efficacy of the means of grace do not depend on the moral character or the priestly character of the minister, nor do they depend on the gender of the minister.” (p.47).

· These two issues (immoral clergy and women clergy) are unrelated (fallacy of diversion, false analogy).

· In the former case, ignorance of the immorality alone allows the situation to continue. It is impossible to remain ignorant of the pastor’s gender. (speculative evidence, non causa pro causa).

41. “Pastors do not represent Christ according to his maleness but according to his humanity. In treating the incarnation of our Lord, the ecumenical creeds place all the weight on his becoming a human being, not on his becoming a male.” (p.47).

· Homo in Latin is ambiguous. The argument needs to be proved, not assumed. (petitio principii).

42. “Having been clothed in Christ, all believers equally, whether male or female, may now represent Jesus to others members of the body.” (p.47).

· This is true. So what? (vacuous explanation).

43. “Serious about mission, the LCA-NZ is situated within a society that regards the exclusion of women from positions for which they are qualified and suited as deeply offensive. Therefore the church must take Paul’s example to heart by treating our culture with due seriousness.” (p.48).

· The gospel itself is “deeply offensive”. Should the church alter the gospel message to make it more palatable to the culture?

· What does “treating our culture with due seriousness” mean? (equivocation, emotional appeal).

· Does the church not already treat the culture with “due seriousness”? (ad hominem).

44. “On the other hand, for the sake of the gospel, the church will want to give the world a glimpse of Christ’s transformative ministry by calling, training and ordaining suitable men and women from all cultures and from all backgrounds.” (p.48).

· The conclusion does not follow (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

· The transformative nature of the ministry is the “freedom through service” mentioned earlier, and explained in Luther’s masterful work, “The Freedom of the Christian”.

· A careful distinction needs to be maintained between the “ministry” of all the people of God and the Office of the Public Ministry” instituted by Christ. (false analogy).

45. “Attention needs to be drawn once again to the texts that are cited as the foundation for ordination itself. The most important of these (Matt 18:13-20; 26:26-29; 28:16-20; John 20:19-23) are addressed to the apostles, who represent the church as a whole to whom the ministry is given, far more than they represent the first clergy.” (p.49).

· What about Matthew 16:17-19 (the promise of the keys to Peter) and Mark 16:15-16 (the proclamation of the gospel to the whole creation)?

· To say that the apostles “represent the church as a whole to whom the ministry is given, far more than they represent the first clergy” is to draw a conclusion about that which is yet unproven (petitio principii).

· The apostles represented both the church and the first clergy (false antitheses).

46. “…women are already at that early stage included in the ranks of the ordained—as deacons (1 Tim 3:11) and widows (5:9,10). It is also important to note that where other leadership positions with contemporary parallels are referred to in the New Testament…the grammar does not indicate that the positions are to be filled only by men, and on no occasion does the writer specifically say that the positions are closed to women.” (p.49).

· The church has never denied/rejected ordination to the auxiliary offices, nor that these offices can be filled by women (see, for example Jeannine Olson’s “Deacons—One Ministry, Many Roles” CPH, 1992, p.58ff). It has, however, always distinguished these offices form the one divinely instituted office. The argument, therefore, is beside the point.

47. “Contemporary sensitivities and local problems may well have kept women out of major liturgical leadership roles in the early church. But the founding texts for the ministry and those texts that describe the ministry in its various manifestations provide no support for the claim that women should be excluded from holding public office.” (p.49).

· Speculation (hypothesis contrary to fact).

· The ministry and the “various manifestations” of the ministry have always been carefully distinguished in Lutheran theology. Thesis VIII of Walther’s “Theses on the Ministry”, states: “The pastoral ministry [predigtamt] is the highest office in the church, and from it stem all other offices in the church.” (p.289) [my emphasis]. Though there is an organic connection between the pastoral office and all other offices, it does not follow that the other offices are merely different “manifestations” of the pastoral office.

48. “Weighty considerations compel us to reconsider the official position of prohibiting women from being ordained as pastors of the LCA-NZ. Pivotal to a correct interpretation of scripture is the understanding that some texts need to be read in the light of the culture of the times, if they are to be interpreted accurately…” (p.49)

· This is rejected by the paper “Hermeneutics and the Ordination of Women”, which states:

“Closely related to the issues of male headship and female subordination in the church and in marriage is the issue of culture and the role it plays in the interpretation of Scripture. Although we will not discuss this in detail, we need to draw attention to a few key points. While these points highlight some of the problems in the debates, both sides agree that the matter of culture is not the critical issue.” (p.21).

49. “A contextual reading of the texts that appear to prohibit women from the public office shows that they clearly deal with issues peculiar to the churches Paul was addressing.” (p.49).

· This needs to be proved (petitio principii).

· Why has the church never before understood Paul to be “clearly [dealing] with issues peculiar to the churches Paul was addressing”? This is a clear rejection of church history, tradition, and the “democracy of the dead” (Chesterton).

50. “The Confessions clearly indicate that the office of the ministry does not depend upon the qualities or gender of the minister for its validity or efficacy but upon the gospel and the sacraments.” (p.50).

· This is false and misleading. The Confessions say nothing about gender at all (misrepresenting the facts, hypothesis contrary to fact).

51. “Women in the LCA today have less opportunity to work within God’s kingdom than their sisters in the Old and New Testaments.” (p.50).

· This remains to be proven (petitio principii).

· Even if it is proved, it does not follow that therefore women should be ordained to the Office of the Public Ministry (post hoc ergo propter hoc). It would be better to discuss whether the offices of deacon or widow should be re-established in the LCA.

52. “Our church has in its midst women who believe that God has called them to the public ministry. They are denied their opportunity to test their sense of calling within the LCA and to fulfil their sense of calling.” (p.50).

· The call to any divine office rests not on the beliefs of individuals but on the external word and call issued by God through the church. God’s will must always take precedence over individual “beliefs” about God’s will.

· There can be no “test” for a non-existent call. The will and command of God set the parameters for those who seek to enter the ministry to “test” their sense of calling. Women are excluded by virtue of their gender. They cannot therefore test their sense of calling to the ministry. They can, however, test their sense of calling to a variety of other offices and positions of service within the church.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

Pastor Mark Tuffin

(Glossary of Logical Fallacies on page 8)

Glossary of Logical Fallacies

1. Ad hominem (to the person)— concern themselves with the person responsible for the argument, rather than the argument itself. They falsely assume that characteristics of the person responsible for an argument imply that the argument itself must have certain characteristics, or that the characteristics of the person responsible for the argument are relevant to the acceptability of the argument itself.

2. Ad Populum—argument based on an appeal to popularity.

3. Ad Verecundiam (out of respect)— try to support a position by appealing to the mere opinion (rather than the considered arguments) of people who hold the position.

4. Anecdotal Evidence—draws a conclusion from cases specifically chosen to support the conclusion (often while ignoring cases that might tend to undermine the conclusion).

5. Distributive Fallacy—the argument turns on a confusion of the collective sense of a class (i.e. the class taken as a whole) with the distributive sense of a class (i.e. each of the parts taken separately).

6. Emotional Appeals—persuade by appealing to emotions (desires, gut reactions, etc.) that are not relevant to the question at hand.

7. Equivocation—depends upon an ambiguity in the meaning of a word. One meaning of the word makes one of the premises true, but it makes another of the premises false. The alternative meaning makes the second premise true, but makes the first premise false.

8. Fallacies of Diversion—distracts attention away from the issue that is genuinely under discussion. Sometimes called Non Sequitur or Ignoratio Elenchi (ignorance of the issue) fallacies.

9. False Analogy—draws a conclusion from observed cases that are only superficially or apparently similar to the unobserved cases about which the conclusion is being drawn.

10. Hasty Generalisation—draws a conclusion from a sample that is too small, i.e. is made up of too few cases.

11. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact—from a statement of fact, the argument draws a claim about what would have been true if the stated fact were not true. The argument falsely assumes that any state of affairs can have only one possible cause.

12. Inductive Hyperbole—the argument draws a conclusion that is stated more strongly than the evidence actually supports. This may include overstating the significance of findings and overstating the degree of certainty we can claim, as well as merely exaggerating the nature of the phenomenon we are observing.

13. Invincible Ignorance—the arguer defends a position simply by refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments supporting the opposing view.

14. Middle Ground—involve confusions concerning what could be called the “middle ground” where exceptions, compromises, combinations and distinctions are possible. In most cases the fallacies result from overlooking or ignoring a middle ground that should be taken into account. However, at least two of the fallacies, False Compromise and Phantom Distinction, result from the opposite impulse: trying to find a middle ground where none exists.

15. Misrepresenting the Facts—the argument is based on incorrect information, i.e. the relevant facts presented in the argument simply aren't true.

16. Non Causa Pro Causa—confuses correlation with causality. One event is cited as the cause of another, but, while there may actually be a connection between the two events, the hypothesis mislocates it, either making the effect into the cause, or treating as cause and effect two events that are independent results of a common cause.

17. Petitio Principii (begging the question)—the words and phrases used to express the premises are synonymous with the words and phrases used to express the conclusion. That is, the conclusion merely restates the premises, with minor changes.

18. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (after this, therefore because of this)—offers an explanation that confuses co-occurrence with causality based on a temporal ordering of the events: A comes before B, so A causes B.

19. Special Pleading—draws a conclusion from evidence that presents only one side of the argument.

20. Speculative Evidence—draws a conclusion from an assertion about what the evidence would show if one were actually to look at it; however, the argument appeals to evidence that has not actually been collected or does not actually exist.

21. Straw Man—misrepresents a position that it seeks to refute. By refuting the position as misrepresented, the argument creates the impression that it has refuted the position that is actually held by opponents.

22. Two Wrongs/Common Practice—it may be wrong but the alternative is worse, and besides, everyone is doing it.

23. Uncharacteristic Sample—draws a conclusion from cases that are not sufficiently diverse to give a fair representation of the class about which a conclusion is being drawn.

24. Uncontrolled Factors—draws a conclusion based on a comparison between two or more groups, even though some important difference between the groups, other than the difference specified by the experiment, may be responsible for the results obtained.

25. Vicious Circle—the conclusion of the argument is appealed to as one of the truths or principles upon which the argument itself rests.