(A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT ALSO KNOWN AS: AVOIDING THE QUESTION [FORM OF], MISSING THE POINT, STRAYING OFF THE SUBJECT, DIGRESSING, DISTRACTION [FORM OF])
From Bo Bennett's excellent website…
Part 1 - Overview
Description: When an arguer responds to an argument by not addressing the points of the argument. Unlike the strawman fallacy, avoiding the issue does not create an unrelated argument to divert attention, it simply avoids the argument.
Logical Form:
X is Y. Did you see that new show on TV last night?
Example #1:
Daryl: Answer honestly, do you think if we were born and raised in Iran, by Iranian parents, we would still be Christian, or would we be Muslim?
Ross: I think those of us raised in a place where Christianity is taught are fortunate.
Daryl: I agree, but do you think if we were born and raised in Iran, by Iranian parents, we would still be Christian, or would we be Muslim?
Ross: Your faith is weak -- you need to pray to God to make it stronger.
Daryl: I guess you’re right. What was I thinking?
Explanation: Some questions are not easy to answer, and some answers are not easy to accept. While it may seem, at the time, like avoiding the question is the best action, it is actually an abandonment of reason and honest inquiry; therefore, fallacious.
In the above example, Daryl is attempting to demonstrate that religion is a cultural phenomenon and belief is mostly a result of one's culture. To claim that this would mean that any particular religion does not represent the truth would be fallacious. All we can know from multiple religions that make conflicting claims is that they all cannot be right.
Example #2
Barney: God is quoted as saying "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys"
It seems to me that;
a) God is commanding murder
or
b) Saul is imagining, or pretending, that God gave him the command in order to justify murder
or
c) The event didn't take place at all.
Fred: Irrespective of the fact that your summations and presentations of false alternatives have been disproven to be the only options time and time again, let's examine the current allegations. Here is a response from one Christian perspective regarding the case of the Amelekites: http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html
Explanation: Fred avoids the question with a reference to an apologist web site which uses 20,000 (twenty thousand!) words to discuss the meaning of the word "genocide."
Example #3
Barney: I don't understand the significance of your reference to "countless believers" coming to faith as adults (as well as conversions). My assumption was that you felt numbers were important. I'm also not sure how you define "truth claim" because it has different meanings. Are you using it in the sense that Christianity is right and other religions are wrong?
Fred: Try harder to read things in context. That will help in you lack of understanding. Your bias probably makes it near impossible for you to read something with a fair mind.
Explanation: Fred avoids the question by means of a character assassination. Regardless of Barney's alleged character flaws, the questions have been avoided by means of ad hominem and any further attempt at clarification is not being encouraged (to put it mildly!)
Exception: At times, a digression is a good way to take the pressure off of a highly emotional argument. A funny story, a joke, or anything used as a “break” could be a very good thing at times. As long as the issue is dealt with again.
Tip: Don’t avoid questions where you are afraid you won’t like the answers. Face them head on, and deal with the truth.
Variation: Distraction can be a form of avoiding the issue, but does not have to be just verbal. For example, being asked a question you can’t answer and pretending your phone rings, saying you need to use the restroom, faking a heart attack, etc.
Part 2 - A Case Study in Avoiding the Issue
No comments:
Post a Comment