We've got 15, 16, and 17. Three chapters this week, but one of them was very short. The worksheets, I don't think, were too difficult. So hopefully, you didn't mind the extra chapter. And that will help us to get through this book in the one semester, as we had planned. We are, this week, getting into the informal fallacies. And that's the main point of the book. In the first 14 chapters, we have to introduce the subject. We did that by learning about logic and basics about logic. Then we spent a short amount of time looking at formal logic and some of the formal logical fallacies that you should be aware of. But now we're getting into the informal logical fallacies, where the fallacy is not in the form of the logic, but instead the fallacy has to do with many other kinds of errors. And what were the three different kinds of errors that make up the informal logical fallacies. They follow the three categories. What was one of them? Well, equivocation was only looked at this week, because we looked at three this week. But equivocation is in the category of what? You guys remember the three categories? Fallacy of ambiguity? Yeah. So equivocation is one of the ambiguous fallacies. I think all three of these are ambiguous fallacies, aren't they? There was two other kinds of informal fallacies. Anybody remember them? Yes? Was it like persuasion? That was different kinds of definitions. Yeah. And we've been learning so much, it all gets jumbled together. I only know one of them. Presumptuous fallacies? Yes, an argument of presumption. And so that's when you're assuming one of your premises Then the last one is relevance. So those are the three categories. You might make a sound argument, but it's irrelevant to the point that you're trying to make. You might make good logic, but your terms are ambiguous, and therefore your argument is not sound. And you might be presumptuous. And yeah, those are the three. Presumption, relevance, and ambiguity. So let's go ahead and start then with chapter 15. This is a chapter on equivocation. Somebody give me a basic definition for equivocation. Changing the meaning of a word within the article. That's a great definition. So when you are equivocating, You are using the word in one way in part of your argument, using the word in another way, but your argument depends upon you using the word in the same way. So this comes back to the basic foundational truth, that a proposition is a statement of truth. It's not the words themselves, the proposition is the meaning. And so you might use the same word, but if you use it with different meanings, then you've got different propositions. And if you've got different propositions, So this is an important thing to make clear when you're talking with people is, as he says there at the chapter review at the top of the page, equivocation can often be avoided by defining the key relevant terms at the outset of the debate or conversation and asking the other person to do the same. Ask, what do you mean by that? What do you mean by the key term? And I want you all to get into the habit and the practice of doing an important discussion, an important conversation, an important argument, not an argument in the sense of getting mad at each other, but an argument in the sense of trying to present reasons and rational thought, to ask for a clear definition of the terms. This was something that I had to do just this last week, just yesterday, when I was teaching a class, and we were talking about the controversial subject of abortion. And as I was studying up on how to present what the Bible teaches on abortion, I found out that the Harvard definition, the world's definition of abortion, is very different from what we normally think of when we hear the word abortion. And they include things in the term abortion that we wouldn't think of as being included in that term. For example, the Harvard definition includes if a mother has a child in her womb and that child dies, and then a doctor has to go in and remove the child who has died from the womb, they call that an abortion. And the reason why they include that in their definition of abortion is probably so that they can say, well, you pro-lifers, you are against abortion, but we know that there are certain abortions that have to be done to save the mother's life. Well, that's not an abortion. So you've got to come and say, well, how are you defining the terms in order to be able to have a real rational discussion do this in order to look like they've won the argument, when in fact they've just clouded the issue. So, this is true not only in origins debates, but in any important discussion debate, theological, ethical, personal, you want to define your terms clearly, make sure that you and your opponent are using the term in the same way. author of our book, Dr. Jason Lyle, he has been involved in a lot of debates on origins. He's a scientist, he's an astronomer, and so he gets into debates with those who are not creationists and who believe in philosophical naturalism, that the world just came to be the way it is without God. And so in those debates, that's where most of his examples of informal logical fallacies are gonna be drawn from. And we see the key term in this chapter, and why he probably puts it first in his Logical Fallacies, is the equivocation on the word evolution. The word evolution is used in ways that are not helpful to the discussion by those who are presenting an evolutionary worldview, a non-theistic worldview, a worldview that is based on philosophical naturalism, and so therefore it clouds the issue and it makes the argument more difficult to understand by those who are hearing it, in a way that makes it sound like the evolutionist has better evidence than he actually does. So that's why he wrote this chapter, is because he wants us to see How we use the word evolution is important, and we can't allow those who are trying to promote what is a bad theory of origins to equivocate on this term and to confuse people thereby, okay? That's the main point of the chapter. But secondly, he also wants to talk about the meaning of science. And when it comes down to the definition of science, notice what it says there in the second paragraph. Does it refer to the scientific method? Does it refer to the body of knowledge obtained by that method? Does it refer to a particular model? Does it refer to historical science or origin science, which is a specific kind of historical science? Or is the term science, this is an important part, I'm going to underline this, being used fallaciously to refer to secular beliefs like evolution and deep time? And here, what I think most often is the fallacious use of the term science a system of belief that is based on philosophical naturalism. People will often conflate philosophical naturalism with science, and so I've been using that term several times this morning. What is philosophical naturalism? So, remember when we got to our chart here, not that one, and who knows where it is, but it's in here somewhere. All the way, okay, fine. We got to the chart here, the basis of the branches of philosophy, other philosophies built upon your metaphysics. And so a philosophical naturalist has a particular metaphysics, that is that he believes the physical world is all there is. That's philosophical naturalism, and it is a metaphysic. It's a way of viewing reality. What is the basis of reality? And they say, well, it's just physical things. And that has many terms, but philosophical naturalism is the one that I use the most to describe that worldview. And so when you define science as, well, you have to believe that the physical world is all there is, that we live in a universe of closed cause and effect, and that there is no God, then if that's your definition of being a scientist, well then you look at people who don't have that same worldview and say well they can't be scientists because a scientist is somebody who has this worldview. So it's a fallacious definition of the word scientist. However, it's become such a believed and used definition of scientist that Even though it's a persuasive definition, even though it's an unfair definition, you might even be able to find it in the dictionary because it just gets used that way so much. And so that's why he says it's the second most common abused word in origins debates is the word science. And so you have to make sure that you and the person you're talking with understand science and you're defining the term the same way if you're going to be able to have a reasonable conversation with them. Some people don't want to have reasonable conversations. They just want to make you look bad. And so in those cases, you want to point out that I'm being reasonable, and I'm being careful in how I'm defining terms. And my opponent is not willing to do that. And it's being unfair. And I just want other people to know that so they're not taken in by these deceptions, these deceptive tactics. So science does not equal philosophical naturalism. is a metaphysical view that the universe is only the physical things and there's nothing else that exists, nothing else is real. So when we're getting into these informal fallacies, we're dealing with the subject of apologetics. And this is where Dr. Lyle wants us to be able to understand logic and informal logical fallacies because as we go about the process of giving an answer for why we believe what we believe, then we need to be able to point out to people where they're making errors in their reasoning and help other people to recognize when they're being taught things that are in error, that are not rational, that are not logical. So this is all part of our call to be prepared to give an answer. And now we're getting into that more theological, more practical application of logic to the God calls us all to do is to give an answer for why we believe what we believe, and this is very helpful in doing so. All right, so, with all that intro, let's look at question number one. For each of the examples, answer two questions. So, each one is going to be worth half a point, well, it's a whole point if it's not an equivocation because then there's no need So we identify, is it an equivocation? If so, which word is equivocated? Number one, science is a very powerful tool, so why deny the science of evolution? Is this an equivocation? Everybody says yes, this is an equivocation. Which word is the one that's being equivocated? Yes, science. which is a great, easy one to start with since he just mentioned that science is one of the most equivocated terms in Origins debates. So, he gave you a gimme there at the beginning. Now, how is the word science being used in the first part of the sentence? Science is a very powerful tool. What's the definition for science there? Scientific method? Yeah, scientific method. Good, that's the tool, the method. And then, why deny the science of evolution? How is the word science being used there? The unbeliever will conflate these ideas together. He won't think that it's wrong to conflate these ideas. He'll think, well, science is the tool. And scientists who are not religious quacks who believe some book from the Bronze Age as to where we all came from, they all recognize that science has led us to the theory of evolution. And so it's like trying to deny the theory of gravity and say that you're a scientist or something along those lines. So, in their mind, it makes sense to equivocate, but if you have someone who really wants to know the truth, and is willing to follow and say, well, okay, I can see why you believe that, but let me explain why your argument is not conclusive, why it's not sound, and why you might want to be open to persuasion to see and not believe in the theory of evolution. Alright, number two. Dr. Mitchell is a medical doctor, and doctors know a lot about medicine, so it stands for reason that Dr. Mitchell knows a lot about medicine. Is there any equivocation here? No, no equivocation here. So, no Part D for that one. If it was an equivocation, it would be on the word doctor, but it is used the same in both. Number three, Charles Darwin believed in evolution. He understood that all life was descended from a common ancestor. Is this an equivocation? No, this is a tricky one, because he used the term evolution, and so you're thinking, oh, this must be an equivocation, because he said that equivocation on the word evolution is the most common fallacy in these debates, and so you think, well, it's kind of a beautiful fallacy. No, it's being used the same way. How is it being used in the first sentence? Okay, so that makes sense, but I thought when evolution, as in the theory, was written out in a sentence, it was written out with a big E, as in big E evolution, and he has a lowercase, so just talking about general evolution, or that's how I learned it, so I said it was a predication. Okay, that's fine, I'll accept that. Great argument. You made a good argument and convinced me. So, descent from a common ancestor is what Charles Darwin believed. And depending upon how you interpret that first sentence, it can either be equivocation or not equivocation. You see how interpretation matters. That's why it's so important that we clearly identify propositions, make sure we understand how the person is using that, and if there's any ambiguity that we ask for clarification, and that will help us to reason. Number four. Creationists are badly mistaken. Evolution is a scientific fact. The evolution of bacteria becoming resistant is well documented. Is this an equivocation? Yes, this is an equivocation. Again, on the word evolution, and evolution with a capital E, because it's first in the sentence here, is a scientific fact. He's talking about the theory of evolution, that's molecules to man evolution, or particles to people evolution. common ancestor. That's the theory of evolution that is being promoted in the first part of the argument. And then the second, the evolution of bacteria becoming resistant is well documented. That's change within a kind of animal, and no creationist denies that that happens, so that is equivocation on the word evolution. We don't deny the Bible, but it's your interpretation we believe to be wrong. We must always be sure that our interpretation of the Bible matches our interpretation of nature. Is this an equivocation? What's the word that's being equivocated? Interpretation. Interpretation, yes. So, when you're interpreting propositional statements, When you're interpreting nature, that is using the scientific method to develop theories and come up with propositional statements. So, they're not the same type of interpretation. Now, if you said this is not an equivocation, I'm going to give you credit for this one, because it's a little bit unclear. I get the point that he's making, and I like that he's making us think about this difference between interpreting propositional statements and interpreting nature. One is used in more of a metaphorical way, the other is used in a more literal way, so I do definitely think it's equivocation. But if you're talking with somebody and they say, well, when I said our interpretation of nature, and my argument didn't depend upon using the same word, it just makes my argument sound a little bit niffier, then I would say, well, okay, maybe your argument didn't depend upon the equivocation. And I think that's where you really have a difficulty here, knowing whether this is a fallacy, and it has to do with the interpretation of the proposition. Anyway, I think I can get a little bit cloudy, but I'm glad we're thinking it through. Number six. Science is what allows us to put men on the moon, and science is how we know what happened millions of years ago. You don't deny the first, so why deny the second? Is this an example of equivocation? Yes, this is an example of equivocation. What's the word that's being equivocated? Science. And how is it being used in the first sentence? It allows us to put men on the moon. What kind of science is that? So you could write the word operational in there just for clarification. And then another word for operational science that sometimes Christians will use is observational science. That's science that involves things that are visible, things that you can perform repeatable experiments on. You can't see millions of years ago, you can't perform experiments on millions of years ago. Instead, you're looking at evidence that you have in the present. and you are extrapolating using scientific principles, but not only scientific principles, also using principles that are based upon your metaphysics, your worldview, and therefore that's when it becomes difficult to know what happened millions of years ago if you don't have the right worldview. If you think the physical world is all there is, and that's your worldview, well then You think that it took a really long time for all the changes to happen among the species in order to get all the different species we have. So this is how you end up with the millions and billions of years because that's how long it would take if there's no God creating things and things just had to happen on their own. And so you see how they conflate the idea of their metaphysics with the scientific method and they think that those go together and are inseparable and that therefore their conclusions based upon their metaphysical understanding are science when it is really not a scientific conclusion but instead it is based upon their philosophy, their world view. 7. Science is the way we learn about nature. That's why the science of astronomy is how we know so much about the universe. Is this equivocation? No, this is not. Nature, astronomy, this is the same kind of science. Observing nature. Observational science or operational science. How does the universe operate? We can see that, we can test that. All right, number eight. Species are constantly evolving, adapting to their environment. The evolution of the SARS virus, the changes in allele frequency of many organisms, and the various breeds of dogs all demonstrate the truth of evolution. So how can creationists honestly deny evolution? Is this an example of equivocation? Yes. So again, same thing as number four, change within a kind, within a virus, within microorganism, within dog breeds, that is something that all creationists believe in. We believe in that kind of change over time within a kind. What we don't believe in is that there's been a common descent, that dogs came from some other kind of animal, and they all trace back to a microorganism that sprang into life all by itself millions of years ago. So we deny the common descent, and none of these observations about the change within certain living things demonstrates common descent. Things change, that doesn't prove that they all come from the same source. A dog is still a dog, even though there are so many different breeds of dogs. But you have to dog. Number 9. Christians are Christ followers and Joseph claims to be a Christian, therefore he is really claiming to be a Christ follower. Is this an equivocation? Number 10. The Bible claims that God is omnipotent, that he can do anything he wants to do. Yet the Bible also says that he cannot lie. Therefore, he is really, not really, omnipotent. Is this an equivocation? People aren't sure about this one. This is a pretty mild equivocation. It's a pretty subtle equivocation. That's the right word for it. Very subtle. What is the word that is being equivocated? Is it can? No, it's omnipotent. So the word omnipotent, he defines it at the beginning as he can do anything he wants to do. But then he changes it in the second definition to what God is able to do, that he cannot lie. And so, omnipotent, if it means you can do anything you want to do, well then God is omnipotent. God doesn't want to lie, therefore he doesn't lie. So he's changed the definition of the term very subtly, And you've got to be careful about these types of arguments. And this shows you how important it is to understand propositions, to understand definitions, to understand the meaning of the words. What do you mean by that? What do you mean by omnipotent? And so that's one that often gets played with and not very well. It's fun to play with words, but when you're trying to determine what is truth, you're not involved in the play. And so it's fine to play with words when you're playing, but when you're trying to make arguments and be persuasive and find the truth, playtime is over. Let's not play with words, but let's speak clearly and plainly. All right, so put the number correct out of 10 at the top of the page, make sure the name Alright, and the rest of us are going to move on to Chapter 16. We've got three chapters covered today, so we've got to keep it moving here. Chapter 16 then deals with the fallacy of reification. And I had to look this word up because I heard different people saying it differently. So I went on YouTube and looked up how to say reification and it said reification. And some of them are even more weird like that. Webster's, not just Webster's, but what's the full name? Merriam-Webster's. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary is a reliable source, and not everything on the internet is reliable. So you can't always trust YouTube to give you the correct pronunciation. And so Merriam-Webster's had what I believe is the correct pronunciation of reification. However, there might be some places and some cultures, English languages spoken all around the world, that do say reification. And either one is fine. I don't think anyone's going to correct you on it because most people don't know the word to begin with. But I would recommend you say reification. Stick with the Merriam-Webster's. That's our American English dictionary. Alright, so when it comes to reification, the key term here is science and evidence. And this is something, if you've watched any Ken Ham videos, you'll notice that Ken Ham is always bringing up He's going to say, we have the same evidence, we have the same facts, we have a different interpretation of those facts. And so the idea that the evidence leads somewhere, what you have to help people understand is that the evidence is going to lead you according to your presupposition. If I believe that the physical world is all there is, there is no God, and whatever is has to have come about by itself, by time and chance, then the evidence that I see is going to be interpreted through those beliefs. And that is going to lead me to certain conclusions. And so when I come to someone else who doesn't view the world that way, who thinks that there is more to the universe, there is more to reality than just the physical things, then the evidence is going to lead them in a different direction. So we have the same facts, we have the same evidence, we have the same fossils, but how we interpret those things is going to depend upon our worldview. your worldview will allow you to interpret something one way and not allow you to interpret it another way. And that's why you have to get back to the presuppositions. Instead of arguing over, well, this fossil is 90 million years old. No, this fossil is 6,000 years old. Instead, you go back and you say, what are the presuppositions that are causing us to come to these different conclusions? And let's talk about, is it true that the physical world is all there is? Or is there evidence, is there good reason to believe that God exists? And once you answer those questions, then you can come together and understand how to interpret scientific evidence regarding the origins of life and what happened when this world began. So, be aware of how the term evidence leads is going to be dependent upon your worldview And in this particular chapter then he's not focusing on presuppositional apologetics, which is what I just talked about, presuppositional apologetics, but instead he's talking about reification. What is reification? Somebody give me a basic definition of reification. What do you do when you reify something? Giving an abstract thing, like making it into a person that can have opinions and do things. Yeah. You might be personifying something that is not a person. Or it could be broader. It's not just personification. But it is giving something attributes that it doesn't have. Adding attributes to it that it doesn't have. Notice one of the alternate terms for this fallacy down at the bottom of the chapter review. The fallacy of hypostatization. And again, I'd have to look up the proper pronunciation of that one. But I think it's hypostatization because in theology we use the word hypostasis. The hypostatic union is when God took on flesh. God became a human being. So he took on attributes that he didn't have before, the physicality that we have. God the Father is not a physical being. You can't see him, you can't touch him. He listened to his audible words, creating sound waves, because he became a part of this physical creation. He took on those attributes. And so, to give something attributes that it didn't have, that's hypostasis. And the fallacy of hypostatization is when you're giving something attributes that it doesn't actually have. And the reason why people will do this in origins debates is they'll say, well, science And the reason why they reify science as if it could say things is because they want to borrow from the authority of the scientific method for their theories and for their worldview. So, they will borrow from the authority that science has as a logical, reasonable, effective, true method. And they'll say, well, this method, and using equivocation, they will then reify the method in order to then say, well, the science of evolution says this, or science says this. And then the phrase evidence leads is just a reification And so these are important ratifications to notice in the origins debate and in other kinds of debates, you've got to still be aware of how other terms can be used or misused this way. So science is a tool, not a person. It doesn't say anything. Evidence doesn't lead. It requires interpretation. And so you have to identify what is the actual proposition that is being made clear away some of the misleading language in order to be able to deal reasonably with the argument. Notice what he says. Reification is not always a fallacy. That reification is acceptable in certain cases. And he says the way he noticed whether or not reification is acceptable or whether it is a fallacy is Does the argument depend upon the misattribution of these things to the term? Notice what it says there. The main way to determine the latter, that is, is it a fallacy, is to see if the reification occurs as part of a logical argument. Now I want to clarify a little bit of what he said there. It can occur as part of a logical argument as long as the logical argument doesn't depend upon the reification. You catch that? It can occur. You can use ramification as part of a logical argument, as long as the logic doesn't depend upon the misattribution of that quality to the term. Now, you see how difficult it is to think well. You guys remember what we put up here, and we keep putting up here, the quotation from Thomas Cohern? as nothing is more easy than to think, so nothing is more difficult than to think well, and so you have a logical argument, it looks good, but they have attributed a quality to one of the key terms that that term doesn't have in order to make the argument work, and therefore it's a fallacious argument. So that's reification. So let's go ahead and take a look at some of the examples here. And there's some tricky ones here as well. Number one, how is it that these microorganisms are able to thrive in boiling hot water? Well, nature has found a way. So we need to identify, is this an example of reification? Yes or no? Yes. Is it a fallacious use of reification? Yes. Why? Why is this a fallacious use of reification? The only reason for why the bacteria has adapted is because nature has done it, and nature can't really do it. Yeah, so that's not an explanation. It's attributing the ability to solve a problem in order to design a microorganism to be able to survive in boiling hot water to nature. But nature does not have the ability to design, it does not have the ability to problem-solve. you attribute it to nature, you have to attribute it to an actual designer. And that's what the Christian world does. We have a designer who can design organisms to survive in different environments. And he did so marvelously. And then you can get into the details of how he designed it and what is in that creature's genome that allows it to survive in these extreme conditions. Number two. Then what happens? Well, after fish evolved, life invaded the dry land. These sound like he's taking them from actual textbooks on evolution. So is this an example of reification? Yes. Which term is being reified? Life. Life is an abstract concept. and doesn't have the ability to invade. Now, this one is a little ambiguous, and so I think it's clear that he wants us to say this is ratification and it's fallacious. He says, you know, life is described poetically as if an army were about to conquer an enemy. Land is not a literal enemy to be conquered, nor do amphibians possess a military mindset. He's being a little bit harsh on this argument, and in fact, this isn't so much an argument, this is more a poetic description of a theory. And so I could see the argument, if you guys put that this is not a fallacious one because it doesn't take place in an argument, It depends upon how you're interpreting it. Is this an argument or is it not an argument? Sometimes it's hard to tell, especially with such a short context. It's been truncated here for us so briefly. Number three, you might wonder how chance processes could result in such remarkable features in organisms, features that may seem like they are designed. But remember, natural selection guided the development of these organisms. So is this an example of reification? Yes, natural selection is the term that is being reified, and that was one of the terms that was key in the chapter about reification. Natural selection does not have a mind by which to guide, and so what you see so often with reification is because the philosophical naturalist, there's that term again, does not believe in God. He has to come up with something that is doing what God has done. And he uses the word nature, he uses the word evolution, he uses the word life, he uses the word natural selection. All of these become the guidance, all of these become the designers of the adaptability of preachers. And instead of attributing it to a God who has a mind and a purpose, They just use abstract concepts that are non-personal. Really, what you have here is what should say God designed them to develop this way. You have natural selection guided the development of these organisms. That's because they don't believe in God. They have to put something else in there, and then they have to give it attributes that that thing doesn't have, but that God does. You see how the logic is being twisted. You are appealing to God, which is a mistake. Science says that we must limit explanations to the natural world. Is this an example of ratification? Yes, a classic example, as it says here in the answer key. It is used as part of the argument that he's proving that you shouldn't appeal to God because science says. Well, science doesn't say anything. If you were going to change this argument, the wording of this argument, to be fair and to not use ratification, what is the actual proposition that is being made? Science says that we must limit explanations to the natural world. What would be the right word to use here instead of science says? How would you change it? Amy? Scientists say. Some scientists say? Yeah, that would be fine. Or most scientists say? That would be one change. Did you have a different one? Yeah, philosophical naturalism. So here, you could say this is a fallacious definition. And so you see how a fallacious or persuasive definition kind of merges with reification. That reification has a lot in common with a persuasive, rhetorical, or fallacious definition. They're fallaciously defining science as if science is the belief in philosophical naturalism. And if science teach us to limit the explanations to the natural world. So, as you're thinking through ratification, think back to the different types of definitions, and how getting a definition wrong can lead to a fallacious argument, and that's what we got here, a fallacious definition, and a fallacious definition that involves attributing to science things that are not true about science. Okay? Number five. The title of Dwayne Goodman's Fossils say no. Is this an example of reification? Yes, this is reification because fossils don't literally say anything. Is this a fallacious use of reification? He says no in the textbook because he says it's not part of an argument, but it's part of a book title. And book titles are not arguments, but they are There are ways of grabbing people's attention. And I'm like, eh, I'm iffy. I'm not quite that willing to let Dwayne Gish off the hook here, even though I am a creationist and I'm sure I love his book. If we're going to be fair, you know, if this was an evolutionist book and the title was And so we want to try to use equal weights and measures. This is what you want to do when you're watching a football game, you know, they throw the flag against your team and you're like, no way, that wasn't a foul, that was not pass interference. But if it was the other way, and they didn't throw the flag, you'd be like, come on, man, that was interference. So you gotta be careful that you're not allowing your bias to control what you see. And I encourage you to err on the side of being hard on to resist your desires and inclinations until they are proved to be right. So be hard on your biases until they are proved to be right. And that's how you really increase in understanding. So I'm going to disagree with the textbook here, and I'm going to say this is a fallacious use of ratification, because book titles are arguments, part of the argument of the book. But since he said it wasn't either way is fine, It is ratification, but whether or not it is fallacious, that I'll give you credit either way. But you have to say that it was ratification. Number six. We thought it would be sunny today, so we planned to have a picnic, but nature had other plans. Yeah, nature doesn't have plans. You know, we're talking about mother nature, that's personifying nature, that's giving nature qualities it doesn't actually have. It's not wrong to do so, but if you're using it as a basis of an argument, and you're saying, well, for my argument to succeed, nature actually has to be able to make plans, well then that's a bad argument. Now, is this one a fallacious use of rectification? I don't think so. It doesn't seem to be part of an argument. It seems to be the person is just explaining why they didn't have their picnic. And an explanation is not the same thing as an argument. He's telling the story about how the day went. Now, if you say it was part of an argument, that's fine, it could be part of an argument, and again, we need more context to determine it for sure, so I will accept either answer as to whether or not it's fallacious, but it is certainly reification. Alright, number seven. Evolution tells us much about the way the world works, therefore creationists should not reject it. The answer key says yes. It says it's a mild case of reification because nature doesn't actually tell us anything. And here, again, I think we're getting a little into the weeds on what is the actual proposition versus what are the words that are being used. So when somebody says evolution tells us much about the way the world works, they're not thinking. Evolution is talking to us and telling us things. They're not attributing personality to evolution. They're saying, well, what I mean by that is that when you understand evolution, it is very useful in understanding how things are working in the world. And so if that's what he means by it, then it's not reification. And so just because it looks like reification doesn't mean it is, because again, a proposition is the meaning of the words, not the words themselves. And so you have to properly understand the meaning in order to discern whether or not it's reification. He says it is. I say, no, I don't really think this is. That's fine. I really don't think it is. It looks like ratification, but that's not what he means by what he's saying. Number 8. You claim that science confirms the existence of God, but you are mistaken because science is atheistic in its approach. Is this ratification? Yes. Science, it has no approach, and science is not atheistic. People are atheistic, and there are certain scientists who are atheistic, but they've conflated their atheism, their philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is your view of reality. Atheism is a particular part of that. most important part of reality. So they've confused their philosophical naturalism or their theological atheism with science. And again, this is a fallacious definition of science, and it's attributing them to science Number nine, creationists say that life was supernaturally created. The scientists know that life came about by natural processes. Is this ratification? This is the first example where the study guide says, no, it's not ratification. For all the others, yeah, all the others were ratification. So it's just one example that's not ratification. Scientists, he doesn't say science knows, he says scientists know, and that is good. So now scientists can know things. Science can't know anything. It's a tool. Tools don't know anything. My hammer doesn't know anything. But scientists, they know things. And so this is not ratification. This is how these arguments should be presented. And of course, what we would say back is, well, some scientists, or most scientists, think that life came about by natural processes. But that's because of their philosophical naturalism, not because of the scientific method. Very important to understand the difference there. The reason why scientists believe that life came about by natural processes is not because of the scientific method. It's because of their metaphysics. And metaphysics is not determined by science. It's determined by other things. Number 10. You should not interpret the data according to your biases. Rather, follow the evidence where it leads. So he's going to say this is reification, or ratification, and he's going to say that evidence doesn't lead anywhere, but he says that it's insufficient from the context to determine whether or not it's used in an argument. I would say most likely it's a part of an argument, but there's not enough context here to know for certain, so either answer is acceptable, and I'm also going to say that there's no wrong answer even for the first because when he says follow the evidence where it leads, he doesn't mean that evidence is actually leading you like a person leads you. This is just a way of saying you're supposed to be unbiased, you're supposed to allow yourself to interpret objectively the evidence that And if that's what he means by it, well then, there's no fallacious reification. There's no misattribution of qualities to it. But I know what he's getting at, and I just think he's a little bit hard. That's a pretty high standard that he holds as opponents, too, as far as the precision of language and what is acceptable in debate. So we want to treat others the way we want to be treated, and try to be gracious towards others And one of the things that those who believe that there is no God, is they will take the attributes of God that are necessary for understanding the world and attribute them to abstract concepts like life and natural selection and other things like that. Nature. Mother Nature. And that's why Mother Nature gets personified. as being that mind, they have to attribute it to something else, and that something else is very often nature, mother nature, who's not a mother, but that's just the way we personify nature in order to take the place of God's person, whom we've rejected, okay? All right, so, the correct number out of, where'd my paper go? I don't know, correct number out of how many? Yep, at the top, and then hand them towards the center, and Jamie will record the grades for that one as well. Good one. Where is it? Perform the Mannequin Act. Okay, yeah. So we did chapter 15, and we did chapter 16. Everybody stand up, stretch out, Give your friend a hug, handshake, pat on the shoulder. Did you all like coffee on Thursday mornings, Friday mornings? And if I put a pot of coffee on what I have here, would you guys see this? Yes, yes. All right, we'll start doing some coffee. I'll just drink my coffee in front of you all. All right, let's come back to order. Go ahead and grab chapter 17. Worksheet number 17, chapter 17 on the fallacy of accent. This is an interesting chapter, even though he says it's not the most important to understand when it comes to origins debates and things like that. That's because it's not something that comes up so much in formal debates, but it is something that comes up just in common discussion, common arguments with your family and friends that you may, you are prone or you may misinterpret what someone has said because you're placing the accent on a different place than that person did. So you may not be listening carefully, or you may be biased and want to hear the sentence in a certain way, and so your mind just shifts the accent of the sentence to the part that you want the accent to be on. And this shows us how subtle communication is. That so much of communication is actually non-verbal. Those who are communication experts, those who study communication, will tell you a high percentage of communication is non-verbal. It's your facial expressions, it's your body posture, the tone of your voice, it's how you say things, and so I've heard that up to 90% of communication is non-verbal. So this is why when you reduce communication to just the words, the verbal part of the communication, like we do in text messages, in emails, in letters, It can be difficult to communicate. You're much more prone to misunderstanding a written message than a verbalized, spoken, in-person message. Even when we're talking about the Bible, one of my favorite examples of this is in John's letters, when John is writing to the church. He says, I have many other things that I want to say to you, but I don't want to do so with pen and ink. but I want to do so face-to-face." And Paul, when he was writing to churches, he would say, I wish I was face-to-face with you and we could communicate face-to-face right now. There's no substitute for face-to-face communication. Even in our communication with God, which is mediated through His Word, our ultimate communication with God is going to come in glory. when we are face-to-face with Christ, and we're going to be transforming to His likeness when we're face-to-face with Him, and there's even hymns about face-to-face, what a glorious day, how wonderful that's going to be, and all that type of thing, because there's no substitute for face-to-face conversation. And whenever you have a difficult conversation that's coming up, whenever you're going to be facing something in life that is don't do it through an email, don't do it even through a phone call, then do it in person, face to face. There's no substitute for that, for the clarity of communication that comes across when you're actually looking at someone, and they're looking at you, and you can fully communicate with all the tools that God has given you to communicate. So, for those situations that really require clear, unambiguous communication, A little bit of wisdom we're throwing in here in our logic class. So, this chapter really reveals how easy it is to miscommunicate just by changing where the accent lies in the sentence. And you don't want people to do this to you. You don't want people to deliberately misconstrue your meaning by changing where the emphasis is. And this is something that's in politics. They'll quote somebody, but they'll quote it in a way that changes the meaning of the sentence by putting the accent in a different place. I'm like, what? I quoted you word for word. Didn't you say that? And I'm like, yeah, I said those words, but I said them in a different way. And how you say it is important. So that's this chapter on accents. He says it doesn't appear very much, so he's not going to have all the questions on accent. But instead, you have to identify. Some of them are fallacies of equivocation. Some are ratification. Some are accent. And some are not fallacies at all. And then you have to explain why. So let's look at number one. Feathers are very light. And light is the fastest substance. Therefore, feathers are the fastest substance. What is the error here? What is the fallacy? Equivocation. Equivocation. What word is being equivocated? Light. So we have light in the sense of visible spectrum of light that moves at an incredibly fast speed, the fastest speed. And then you've got light as in not weighing very much. And so the word light is being used in two different ways, two different definitions, and that's an equivocation. And you see how foolish your conclusions can be when you allow for equivocation. Feathers are not the fastest substance. Number two, Stacey normally gets groceries on Monday, but this week she gets groceries on Tuesday. On Wednesday, she says to her friend Tammy, I didn't get groceries on Monday this week. Tammy responds, really? Who did? So, what's the fallacy here? This is a fallacy in accent. Now, let's say it in a way that would have been considerable. But if you said, I didn't get groceries on Monday this week, then the right response would be, well, what day did you get them on? So where the accent is changes the meaning of the proposition. Very important to see that. You can even say, I didn't get groceries on Monday this week. I got groceries on Monday last week. So where the accent is can be moved So, where the accent is, is very important. Number three. Man is the only creature with a soul, and a woman is not a man. Therefore, a woman does not have a soul. What a misogynist reasoning argument here. What kind of fallacy is here? Or is a fallacy, then? What kind of fallacy? Nobody knows? Is it equivocation? It is equivocation. What word is being equivocated? Man. Man. Man used to be used, and not much anymore, in the sense of humanity, mankind. And I still think it's fine to use the word that way. I haven't bought into the new speak. Let's go back to the old speak. But if you're going to use it that way, then you can't change the definition where it's referring to a male of the human species in the second part. Number four, you cannot travel faster than light. Nature will resist your every effort. What kind of fallacy is going on here? Radiation, yes. Nature is the concept. It's abstract. It doesn't actually resist anything. So you could say, Reification. It's physically impossible. You cannot travel past the mind. It's physically impossible. I guess that would be a way to say it. I wouldn't use any figures of speech. The argument doesn't depend upon the reification. So again, once again, I would say this is not a fallacy. I'd say the argument doesn't depend upon nature having the ability to resist something or not resist something. I don't think it's a fallacious use of ramification because the argument doesn't depend upon it. Number five. Brent has to cancel his date with Emily at the last minute due to a family emergency. So Emily stays home and watches television. Later, Courtney asks her, how was your date with Brent? Emily says, I didn't go on a date with Brent. Courtney responds, oh, whom did you go with? Courtney heard, I didn't go on a date with Brent. That's not what she said. She said, I didn't go on a date with Brent. So if you had the emphasis on didn't or on go, then that would be the correct emphasis. If you have the emphasis on Brent, then that would be what Courtney heard incorrectly. Now, it's fun to play with language. And so if you're doing this with somebody, you're just having fun and making jokes, that's great. No problem. But if you're trying to make a logical argument to persuade someone about a certain belief that is important, that's when you don't do this type of thing. It's fine to play with the fallacy of accent for fun. Don't think that you're sinning by making jokes. In fact, most jokes are dependent upon fallacies, and they'll equivocate terms, and they'll change the accents, and they'll do all kinds of things. They're just playing with language when they're having fun. Nothing wrong with that. But the Bible doesn't do much of that, because the Bible is not trying to entertain you, it's not trying to make jokes, it's trying to teach you tricks, it's trying to persuade you about the most important issues of life. So even though you don't find a lot of jokes in the Bible, it doesn't mean jokes are wrong, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't play with language, it just means there are times when you shouldn't play with language. When you're talking about God's Word, that's one of those times where you're not being a jokester or an entertainer. And if you have a preacher who's always telling jokes and trying to entertain, he probably should cut that down and be serious about what he's dealing with. Alright, number six. You really should file your income taxes. Fairness demands it. What kind of fallacy is here? He says it's reification. And he says that it is part of an argument. And again, I think, I gotta clarify, just because it's part of an argument doesn't mean it's fallacious. It's fallacious if the argument depends upon this thing having that quality, okay? So I don't think the argument depends upon fairness having a personality. That's not what the argument depends upon. The argument depends upon filing taxes being in accord with what is right and fair. So I'm going to disagree that this is actually not a fallacy, but it is an example of reification, but it's a permissible one because the argument doesn't depend upon it. Number seven. Terry says, it is impolite to talk bad about people behind their back. Pat says, you really think it's wise to talk bad about people to their face? What is this? This is a fallacy of accent. So if you put the emphasis on behind their back, then Pat's statement makes sense. If you put it on talking bad, well then, Pat's response doesn't make sense. So it would depend upon where did Terry put the emphasis, and most likely, Terry put the emphasis on the talking bad, and not on the behind their back part. Number eight, Paul says, I've thought of asking Amy to marry me, but I'm not sure I really love her. Troy says, well, who do you love? Perhaps you should ask her instead. So Troy's a jokester. He's ready there for the joke and to lighten the situation. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But you've got to be careful not to overdo it. If you're always joking and misplacing and playing with the accent, then people will get annoyed eventually. So use such jokes sparingly and at the right time. Fallacy of accent, once again. Number nine. Rambunctious children are a real headache. Two aspirin will make a headache go away. Therefore, two aspirin will make rambunctious children go away. What kind of fallacy is this? Yes, good. So, the word headache is used metaphorically. Oh, actually, no, what's being equivocated is go away, right? So, headache is the same, but what's used metaphorically is go away. And, yeah, that's an interesting one, isn't it? The term headache is used non-literally. They're not actually a headache. Okay, yeah, yeah. So, the equivocated term is headache. Metaphorical headache versus actual headache. Number 10. Religion is evil. It deceives people into thinking that there is an afterlife. It kills people through war. That's why I hate religion. What's the fallacy here? It's a little tricky. You actually get some hard ones there towards the end. Reification? What's being reified? Oh, religions. Religion. So, religion can be evil. People can be evil. can deceive people. And so it's an understandable use of reification for religion versus religious teachers. And there's other problems with this argument besides the reification. And I don't know that the argument depends upon religion having this personality. Again, I think this is more of a figure of speech. And the real problem with the argument here isn't the figure of speech, the ramification, but instead the real problem with the argument is that he is lumping all religions together into being pro-war and killing people. war and killing because of believing in an afterlife. So he is having a fallacy of presumption in this one and we'll get to fallacy of presumption at a later time. So put the correct number out of 10 once again on the top of your page and hand those in and Jamie will record the grades and hand those back to you. And, do we end at 10 after or 15 after? We end at 15 after, right? So, let me hand out your assignment for next week. Got a couple minutes to do that. We're gonna try to cover three chapters again, if that's alright with you. Make sure everybody gets one of those. Sorry, I've got the projector right in front of you. Not the projector, the rejector. 18, 19, and 20 covering the fallacies of composition and division. That's chapter 18, composition and division. That sounds interesting. Chapter 19 on hasty generalizations and sweeping generalizations. That might be the fallacy that we just talked about, that all religions are teaching people to kill through war. I've seen a lot of hasty generalizations in arguments. One I came across this week was in a debate that was happening online on YouTube. And what was the hasty generalization? Oh, it was like, if you meet a certain type of theology position, they're always going to be rude and condescending or something along those lines. And it's like, well, maybe you met one of those people who believed that, who were rude and condescending. Maybe you met three or four people who were rude and condescending, who held that position. That doesn't mean that everybody who holds that position is rude and condescending. Three or four is not a sufficient sample size to say that everyone who holds that position has that attitude. So you want to be careful that other people don't form hasty generalizations about you. You're like, well hey, you know, I'm a nice guy. It's because you met some jerk who believes the same thing that I do. That doesn't mean I'm a jerk. So don't do that to other people. It's an easy way to try to win an argument and say, well, you know, I've met five of these people and they've all been mean. And so it must be a bad position. Well, not necessarily. Beware of the hasty generalization and the sweeping generalization. And then chapter 20 is the fallacy of false cause. So chapter 18, 19, and 20. Thank you. I know I want to get some more interaction and review going on among you, so I'll see if I can figure out a way to get three chapters done and also have some time for you to interact with one another, maybe some more games and review games. And that might mean we have to go faster during our grading of the homework and explaining of the concepts. So we'll see what we can do.