Question

...
James

Absence of term

Please name the fallacy involved when an assertion is based on the absence of a specific term in a written text, even though the concept is necessarily implied by the text's data.

asked on Saturday, Apr 29, 2023 06:03:08 PM by James

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
Darren writes:

Can you give an example?

posted on Saturday, Apr 29, 2023 06:31:02 PM
...
0
James writes:
[To Darren]

Here’s an example of this fallacy from theology: 

“The doctrine of the trinity is false; it is never mentioned in the Bible.” 

But the majority of conservative Christian theologians would say that although the term is never used in the Bible, the doctrine is the necessary implication of numerous passages. 

Does that help?

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Apr 30, 2023 05:53:45 AM
...
0
James writes:
[To Darren]

Try this non-theological example of the same fallacy(?) for which I am seeking a term:

“I have read all 500 extant letters of [some historical figure] and he never once uses the term wife, son or daughter. Therefore he had no children.”

And yet the letters twice speak of a conflict with his son in law. 

The error is a case of overlooked evidence but it also rests on the  notion that since the terms wife, son or daughter are absent, there was no wife, son or daughter. It is the latter that I am interested in. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Apr 30, 2023 02:06:14 PM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To James]

Here it is a standard non sequitur . There really is no consistent form to this alleged fallacy. In this example, the form would be "because writer X doesn't write about Y, then they don't have any Y". In your previous example, it was "because issue X wasn't clearly mentioned in book Y, then issue X is false." The reason why this would be fallacious and not your previous example, is because there is no magic in this example. Nobody, using the excuse of "faith" or "divine revelation," can claim that writers who don't write about their family don't have any family. Therefore, the conclusion clearly doesn't follow.

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Apr 30, 2023 02:39:22 PM
...
0
James writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Thanks.

I asked this same question of an AI bot (using my second example). It responded that this is the "fallacy of presumption... ...a type of fallacy that relies on unwarranted assumptions."

Would you agree that is the best way to categorise the error?

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Apr 30, 2023 06:00:58 PM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To James]

Perhaps... for your second example. We can say that one is presuming that the writer would write about their family if they had one... assuming the person making this claim had no reason to justify that presumption. But be careful... if you presume that the other has no justification and they do, you would be the one committing the fallacy. If you go with a non sequitur , there is no presumption or mind-reading needed on your part. Regardless of what the person saying this knows, the claim made (as written) is fallacious in that the conclusion does not follow.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, May 01, 2023 06:24:14 AM
...
0
James writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Thanks. That's helpful.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, May 01, 2023 09:31:07 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
2

Hi James,

The pattern itself you suggest that might be a fallacy is very specific to certain contexts, which is why it wouldn't be a fallacy. The potential problem with the reasoning here (in your given example) is the overall assumption that if some Christian doctrine isn't specifically and clearly discussed in the Bible, that it is not true. This isn't a question of logic nor reason, but one of faith or theology. One might, through faith, believe that any religious concept that is true would be clearly stated in the Bible, and through their specific interpretation, they would deny that the trinity is clearly stated, therefore, false.

I don't meant to sound preachy, but when dealing with magic, gods, myths, supernatural, "the Holy Spirit making it clear" to someone, or anything not subject to reason and logic, anything goes.

You might be able to introduce reason by holding the person accountable for being at least internally consistent . For example, ask them if they believe that any religious concept that is true would be clearly stated in the Bible. Then find a religious belief they hold that is not clearly stated in the Bible.

answered on Sunday, Apr 30, 2023 09:39:17 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Mchasewalker
0

It would seem that this is more of an appeal to Biblical literalism rather than theology, as it assumes that the Bible is literally the inerrant and final Christian authority, whereas theological apologetics is permitted a wide berth in interpretation, speculation, connecting the dots, or what Dr. Daniel Dennett describes as theological "spin". 

Dr. Peter Boghossian describes theology as a false epistemology. Dr. Andrew Bernstein defines theology "... in its distilled essence: The employment of high-powered human intellect, of genius, of profoundly rigorous logical deduction—studying nothing.”

 So, the claim in the OP's question: "The doctrine of the Trinity is false as it is never mentioned in the Bible" is precisely what you'd expect from biblical literalism and not theology. The doctrine of the Trinity is exactly what you would expect from theological musings and sophistry.

So, the fallacy is a bit of equivocation as it mistakenly inserts the term theology for literalism and concludes with a fallacious idea that any alternative to literal interpretation is false.

answered on Sunday, Apr 30, 2023 01:12:39 PM by Mchasewalker

Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories

Comments