As society shifts away from rationality, our ability to agree on morality slides into obscurity. Without a little thought about how to think, how to reason, how to avoid fallacies, we are doomed to wallow in the mire of conflicting emotional opinions.
For fun, let me share with you two logical fallacies that I find myself hearing on a regular basis. These are in the church from time-to-time. They are certainly on the television and the Internet. And, if we learn to spot them, perhaps we can help people to get past dangerous, faulty reasoning.
Inflation of Conflict Fallacy
Inflation of conflict is the term for a logical fallacy in which a person claims that disagreement between opposing viewpoints means that no valid viewpoint can exist. If expert A and expert B disagree about subject Y, then we assume that nobody can know anything about Y. We may as well give up any study of Y. Certainly we cannot suggest that a wise, modern, forward-thinking person can hold a position on Y.
Without advocating for either side, consider the discussion about masks from our most recent health crisis. One set of healthcare experts declares that masks prevent the spread of diseases. Another set of experts declares that masks in fact do nothing to help temper the spread of disease. The inflation of conflict fallacy would lead one to conclude that, therefore, nothing at all can be known about masks and the spread of disease.
But ask yourself, is there no actual answer? Does the disagreement between the two expert groups tell us that nothing can be known by mankind regarding masking? Or is there a possible alternative solution that better befits logic? One might consider that one group is simply wrong in their conclusions or dishonest about their supposed opinion. The presence of disagreement, however, is no proof that there is no such thing as a correct answer.
Try another example, this time from doctrine. Baptists declare that only believers should be baptized. Presbyterians declare that infants born to believers should be baptized. If a person concludes, therefore, there is no correct position on baptism, that person would be committing the inflation of conflict fallacy. The presence of a conflict between a Baptist and Presbyterian theologian does not indicate that there is not a correct position to be found or that nothing can be known about baptism.
You might say to yourself that you would not fall prey to this fallacy, but you may find that it is more common than you think. When you are faced with a difficult issue, and when you believe—genuinely believe—that smart people have made good arguments on both sides, you may find yourself tempted to pretend that no answer exists. Be careful. It is good to acknowledge when smart people have made cases on both sides of an issue. This prevents you from disrespecting people who disagree with you as if they are dumb dumbs. But the presence of smart people in one camp does not make that camp’s position correct. In point of fact, both camps can be wrong. But nothing here indicates that there is no possible way to know the truth.
In medicine, masks are either helpful or not helpful, and there is a way to know. In doctrine, babies either should be baptized or they shouldn’t, and there is a way to know. The same holds true for arguments regarding issues of atheism, gender, sexuality, Calvinism, women in the pulpit, and the age of the earth. Just because experts disagree does not exclude the possibility of a true answer to a question existing. And to pretend that disagreement between experts allows you to do your own thing without repercussion is fallacious.
The Golden Mean Fallacy
Argument to moderation, also known as argumentum ad temperantiam or the golden mean fallacy, is a fallacy where a person claims that, when views differ, a compromise between the two views will be the correct solution. If expert C suggests that 10 units is proper, while expert D argues for 6 units, the right answer must be 8 units. While compromise can be a helpful solution to some problems in society, it is logically fallacious to suggest that all disagreements must be settled with compromise.
From what should be absurd, imagine that an evil political dictator wants to put to death 50% of the population of a nation. The evil man’s political opponent, a good man, wants none of the population to be murdered. The golden mean fallacy would suggest that the murder of 25% of the population would be an acceptable solution.
Without illustrating further, I believe that you can see that a press to compromise is not always a proper solution. This is true in the church and in the civil arena. Compromise can be a sweet way to solve problems, especially regarding issues of preference, but when we are dealing with claims of truth, doctrine, and morality, seeking a middle ground may simply be walking both sides into error instead of leading to a right conclusion.
Conclusion
Have you found yourself using either of the above fallacies in your reasoning with others? Have you refused to make an argument about an important life issue because experts disagree? Have you pressed for compromise in situations where taking a stand, an absolute stand, is actually what is right? I would urge you to guard your thinking. Do not compromise truth for the sake of comfort by the means of logical error.
Pastor Travis Peterson 