Quote:
Originally Posted by tbpew
I hope this thread gives the OTHER thread that spawned it an important perspective to be considered.
A person who is generally accepted as seeking to move in God's gifting of a word of prophesy, who, when praying in preparation for receiving an offering, is inspired to evoke the phraseology of "uncommon seed for an uncommon harvest" is unmistakeably identifying with the teaching of Murdock and Parsley.
|
Why is it unmistakeably indentifying with them? Im not saying this person did not receive this stuff from someone else but similiarity is not identity. Muslims say "One God" too, but does that mean we identify with them? See that is a logical fallacy. There has to be more than just showing that they've said the same words.
This is the same sort of false arguments anti-Christians like Atheists make by showing similarities between Christianity and other religions prior to Christianity like Mithraism
31. Questionable Cause
DEFINITION: This fallacy has the following general form:
1. A and B are associated on a regular basis.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.
The general idea behind this fallacy is that it is an error in reasoning to conclude that one thing causes another simply because the two are associated on a regular basis. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because they are associated on a regular basis. The error being made is that a causal conclusion is being drawn from inadequate evidence.
The Questionable Cause Fallacy is actually a general type of fallacy. Any causal fallacy that involves an error in a reasoning due to a failure to adequately investigate the suspected cause is a fallacy of this type. Thus, fallacies like Post Hoc and Confusing Cause and Effect are specific examples of the general Questionable Cause Fallacy.
Causal reasoning can be quite difficult since causation is a rather complex philosophic issue. The complexity of causation is briefly discussed in the context of the specific versions of this fallacy.
The key to avoiding the Questionable Cause fallacy is to take due care in drawing causal conclusions. This requires taking steps to adequately investigate the phenomena in question as well using the proper methods of careful investigation.
Also similar to this
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. A favorite example: "Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornography causes violence toward women." The conclusion is invalid, because there can be a correlation between two phenomena without one causing the other. Often, this is because both phenomena may be linked to the same cause. In the example given, it is possible that some psychological factor -- say, a frustrated sex drive -- might cause both a tendency toward sexual violence and a desire for pornographic material, in which case the pornography would not be the true cause of the violence.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is nearly identical to cum hoc ergo propter hoc, which you should see for further details.
Linear Mode
