Errors in theology and philosophy are due to verbal and logical errors. Regrettably, high school students and college students are no longer taught logic. As a result, hardly anyone knows the rules of right thinking.

Imagine if players in the NBA, MLB, or NFL were never taught the rules of their respective sports nor expected to abide by them. What would result? Athletic chaos. Yet, in the realm of thinking and morality, this is precisely what we witness on a daily basis.

There are basically forty-nine verbal and logical problems or fallacies. These treat the rules for playing the game of “thinking.” If you do not know them, you are likely to err in judgments, morals, doctrine, and right living. It is essential that we re-educate ourselves and our children in right thinking.

We’ll begin with seven verbal fallacies or “smokescreens” used in discussion:

1. Equivocation: Using a word that shifts its meaning so that the statement loses it’s intended meaning. When this happen, one must make distinction to correct the meaning. Examples of equivocation:

“Who’s on first?” (Is Who a question or a person’s name?)

“He cares for her” (Does he care for his wife or is he caring for a sick old lady?)

“I am on the right side of things” (Is he referring to his location or to his moral stance?)
“God is good. Ice cream is good” (Good is being used in two ways and could lead to confusion)

2. Amphiboly: Using an ambiguous phrase.

“The dog ran to the bowl full of food” (Is the dog full of food or the bowl full of food?)

“To make real Texas chili, you must put your heart into it” (Putting your heart in it can mean two things, right)

3. Accent: Placing a verbal accent (or italics) on a certain word to indicate a different meaning.

“I am not the one that needs more money” (Implying that someone else does needs money)

“I am not the one the needs more money” (Implying that there may not be a need, but perhaps a desire for money money)
“The Mass represents the Sacrifice of Christ” (orthodox)
“The Mass represents the Sacrifice of Christ” (not orthodox)

4. Slanting: Using a word in place of another word in order to prejudice the statement.

“He is flexible” vs “He is wishy-washy”. The former is positive, the latter is negative.

“He is a public servant” vs “He is a bureaucrat” The former is positive, the latter is negative.

“Pro-choice” vs “Pro-abortion” The former is assumed to be positive, the latter is negative.

5. Slogans. These are not fallacies, but it substitute loaded phrases for arguments.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” (Yet sometimes we improve things even when they aren’t broke)
“Don’t change horses in the middle of a stream”
“I like that ol’ time religion” (sounds good, but what does it mean? Buddhism is “older” than Catholicism)

6. Hyperbole. These arguments exaggerate truth claims so as to obscure them.

“You always say that about me.”
“Catholics are always troubled by guilt.”

7. Straw Man. These arguments set up a weak version of the opponents argument and then rip it down.

“Christ said, ‘Judge not,’ but Christians make judgments about political issues. Christians are hypocrites.”
“Catholics believe they can sin all they want if they just go to confession afterward”
“Catholics don’t believe that the cross of Christ is enough – that’s why they have purgatory”

Like I mentioned above, most of these are related to semantic difficulties not logic per se. Nonetheless, it is important to understand the role of language in logic so as not to be confused.

Perhaps tomorrow, we will look at seven Fallacies of Diversion. By the way, I’m lifting most of this from Peter Kreeft’s book Socratic Logic. It’s a wonderful and simple book. I highly recommend it to beginners in Philosophy.