Question on the topic of LOGIC

[Speedlimits]

I am about to take a college course in Logic and was going through some formal and informal fallacies in my head. Please correct this if I am wrong.

Would the following statement be an example of an informal fallacy?

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose."

An informal fallacy is valid in the strictest sense but provides no reason to believe in its conclusion.

It is an argument in which the premise presupposes the conclusion. (i.e. I don't believe in God because I don't believe in God)

This is an example of circular reasoning. Correct?

[madnak]

I don't think so, but you would probably want to put it in syllogistic form to make it clearer.

Is the person saying "It is irrational to believe in Mother Goose. There is no more reason to believe in God than to believe in Mother Goose. Therefore, it is irrational to believe in God?" That seems most likely. And then the answer I'd give is "sort of." The premises are rather abrupt, at any rate. If the speaker is trying to argue that there's no more reason to believe in God than to believe in Mother Goose, then it's definitely circular. But it seems that he's just trying to argue that if there's no more reason to believe in God than in Mother Goose, then it's irrational to believe in God.

But under most circumstances it's definitely an informal fallacy. The implicit assumptions are absurd in, for example, debates with Christians. So yes, I think it's a good example of an informal fallacy. But context matters with these things. I don't believe it's a circular argument.

[ojc02]

I agree this does seem like circular reasoning. I think a way to correct it would be to say:

"I don't believe in God *for the same reason that* I don't believe in Mother Goose"

Does that fix it?...

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so, but you would probably want to put it in syllogistic form to make it clearer.

Is the person saying "It is irrational to believe in Mother Goose. There is no more reason to believe in God than to believe in Mother Goose. Therefore, it is irrational to believe in God?" That seems most likely. And then the answer I'd give is "sort of." The premises are rather abrupt, at any rate. If the speaker is trying to argue that there's no more reason to believe in God than to believe in Mother Goose, then it's definitely circular. But it seems that he's just trying to argue that if there's no more reason to believe in God than in Mother Goose, then it's irrational to believe in God.

But under most circumstances it's definitely an informal fallacy. The implicit assumptions are absurd in, for example, debates with Christians. So yes, I think it's a good example of an informal fallacy. But context matters with these things. I don't believe it's a circular argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a direct quote so I wouldn't be put it in a different form to make it easier. Also you say it is an informal fallacy yet you don't classify what type of informal fallacy it is.

I think the problem with this statement is that there is an unstated co-premise. Therefore. it is necessary to make an assumption to conclude anything from a set of true statements.

The assumption must be true as well, if we are to follow it logically.

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose."

"I don't believe in God"- This is the conclusion

"because I don't believe in Mother Goose"- This is the premise

The objection I have with this argument is classified as an inference objection. Specifically, it is an objection to an argument based not on any of its stated premises but rather on the relationship between the premise and contention.

The unstated "co-premise" needs to be revealed in order to more accurately pinpoint the informal fallacy.

Premise I don't believe in Mother Goose.

Support Because Mother Goose was "made up."

Support And I see no difference between God and
Mother Goose, therefore God was "made up."

Conclusion I don't believe in God

The above follows logically. The reason "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose" doesn't is because God and Mother Goose are used synonymously.

I don't believe in Mother Goose because I don't believe in God. This statement does not sound as solid as the original yet it is the same exact statement.

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in God. Same statement.

The reason is what is missing in the original.

[madnak]

The type depends on the circumstance. The statement "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose" taken at face value is completely absurd. We can only speculate about that, because it doesn't follow in any way. I assumed that, as ojc suggested, you meant "I don't believe in God for the same reasons that I don't believe in Mother Goose," which is certainly not fallacious on any inherent level. Maybe you even want to extend it to "God is irrational for the same reason Mother Goose is irrational," and now we're getting somewhere, but I could go on all day.

Informal logic is a mess, and it's always based on absurdities and fallacies from some perspective. I certainly don't see your how your supporting premises can be inferred from the statement in question, especially given that they aren't exactly rigorous. "And I see no difference between God and Mother Goose, therefore God was 'made up'" isn't a premise at all, you've gone and inserted some huge twists and turns into the argument.

Me, I assume the rational basis for everything is ultimately syllogistic, and I approach discussions with that in mind. A valid informal argument to me is merely an informal argument that is meant to express some syllogistic construct. But fallacies are rarely as clear as the examples you may see in your college course. Also there can be overlap and ambiguity, etc.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
The type depends on the circumstance. The statement "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose" taken at face value is completely absurd. We can only speculate about that, because it doesn't follow in any way. I assumed that, as ojc suggested, you meant "I don't believe in God for the same reasons that I don't believe in Mother Goose," which is certainly not fallacious on any inherent level. Maybe you even want to extend it to "God is irrational for the same reason Mother Goose is irrational," and now we're getting somewhere, but I could go on all day.

Informal logic is a mess, and it's always based on absurdities and fallacies from some perspective. I certainly don't see your how your supporting premises can be inferred from the statement in question, especially given that they aren't exactly rigorous. "And I see no difference between God and Mother Goose, therefore God was 'made up'" isn't a premise at all, you've gone and inserted some huge twists and turns into the argument.

Me, I assume the rational basis for everything is ultimately syllogistic, and I approach discussions with that in mind. A valid informal argument to me is merely an informal argument that is meant to express some syllogistic construct. But fallacies are rarely as clear as the examples you may see in your college course. Also there can be overlap and ambiguity, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah the "made up" co-premise is unfounded. I probably should have just said, A belief in Mother Goose is irrational for the same reason a belief in God is irrational.

I just see these little one liners from people trying to be smart and tried breaking it down in my head. Question though.

Informal logic is more practical then formal logic in everyday use correct? For the average peson that isn't formulating proofs but instead participating in everyday discourse, would that be a fair statement?

[madnak]

Sure, but just as life is messy, so is informal logic. It would take months to get through a single debate about an issue using formal logic, so it's not very practical at all. But informal logic is also much more flexible and is open to interpretation, so communication gaps happen easily and there's no easy way to "pin someone down." Every statement we make is based on a whole constellation of internal premises. As a result, there has to be some tug-of-war at some level. It's impossible to explain every premise that a conclusion like "it's 2:26pm" or "my dog has black fur" is based on, or at least impractical. Just to start I'd need to define what I mean by time (relation of sun to earth?), then validate that (the sun exists, earth exists), then validate my perceptions (what I see and identify as the sun is really the sun), then validate the evidence in the same way (my clock is real and functional), then validate the conclusion (my clock reads 2:26, therefore it's 2:26pm). Thankfully most of these assumptions are universal, "obvious," but it can be hard to draw the line of "obvious," especially in logical debates. So I may be approaching you in good faith, assuming that you already agree that Mother Goose and God are equally likely, and that if I therefore prove that Mother Goose is unlikely then I've also proved God is unlikely. But you may not accept those assumptions at all. Etc, etc, etc.

I mean, technically isn't it a fallacy for you to say "the sun rose this morning?" It depends on premises like "the sun exists," and on semantics like "the sun didn't really 'rise,' it just moved in relation to the earth." It really can never be 100% clear cut.