A summary course in logic

I’ve decided to take it upon myself to correct a few basic misconceptions about the nature of logical fallacies.

First thing’s first is what is called the “fallacy fallacy” (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy) wherein a fallacious argument is taken to be incorrect ”because” it is fallacious, rather than merely being an example of faulty reasoning.

Take the following statement:

Bears have fins, only mammals have fins, therefore bears are mammals.

The conclusion is correct, while the reasoning is demonstrably false. An argument can still be correct even if it is fallacious.

Let us examine another statement:

Bears have fur, only mammals have fur, therefore bears are mammals.

The conclusion is the same as the above statement, but unlike the previous statement, the reasoning here is not demonstrably false, meaning that the reasoning here is sound.

So, to reiterate, an argument doesn’t have to be incorrect because it is fallacious, for logical fallacies have nothing to do with matters of “correctness,” it only has to do with flaws in reasoning.

“Were you there?”

Creationists like to use this as a “gotcha” argument against so-called “evolutionists”, but in reality the question is fallacious at best, and utterly meaningless at worst. First thing’s first, one can easily reverse this question and ask the creationist if they were “there” at the creation of the earth by God, of course they’ll say “God was there”, ignoring the fact that the only “evidence” they got is a book shown to be completely unreliable about damn near everything back to front, their God couldn’t even get his damn creation story straight, so why should we view the Bible as reliable since the whole damn thing is riddles with contradictions?

The second problem with it is that it assumes that eyewitness testimony is the most reliable form of evidence, when we know for certain that the case is the exact opposite of what they believe. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence, not only because memory is prone to error, but because the supposed “eyewitness” may have biases or illicit motivations that may cause them to commit perjury and lie about the events they witnessed.

The third problem is that it, probably unwittingly, disses the forensic sciences. Why do all that work investigating a crime scene when the eyewitness said some random person do it, and if eyewitness testimony is the most reliable form of evidence, they must be right, right? Science is nothing more than forensics, we uncover what happened in the past based off of the evidence left behind, there’s always a trail to follow, and that trail doesn’t go away, no matter what the irrational, paranoid, bigoted liar for Jesus wants you to believe.