| Fallacy of Multiplication |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Cause
>
Fallacy of Multiplication
|
Fallacy of MultiplicationThe fallacy of multiplication is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The Fallacy of Multiplication occurs when extra non-causes are included in the actual causes. Examples of the Fallacy of Multiplication
It is probably true that we might stop inventing, innovating, and staying ahead if we were to eschew the scientific process. However, knowing the difference between historical and observational science involves knowing the difference between creative imagination and observation. It would seem that that might actually help inventing, innovating, and staying ahead to be able to know the difference between make-believe and reality. Bill added this extra cause. He also added a cause that he called “eschewing science.” Looking at the bulk of Bill’s talk, he was on both sides of the issue of challenging scientific traditions. On the one hand, he said that challenging old ideas is what science is all about. Then, he made remarks like this one in which he defines “science” as the process and the old ideas, and he defines “eschewing science” as challenging old ideas. Every scientific breakthrough happens because someone challenges old ideas. But Bill was really only talking about the old idea of the sacred cow known as the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionCausal Fallacy Limited Depth Causal Reductionism Inevitability Determinism Furtive Fallacy Conspiracy Theory Unnatural Fallacy Scapegoating Appeal to Coincidence Subverted Support Lurking Variable Taking Undeserved Credit Correlation Proves Causation Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Wrong Direction Ion Common Cause Insignificant Cause Elephant Repellent Recently Viewed |
