A frequently quoted example reported in 1973 by the Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman (born 1934) and Amos Tversky (1937–96) comes from the experience of flying instructors. Another possible response to the Münchhausen trilemma is to appeal to yet more premises; that is, when someone asks the realist, “how do you know reality exists independently of the mind,” the realist can produce an infinite regression of premises. The fact that we are in the present is proof. It reminds me of the anecdote illustrating the infinite regression fallacy. G. E. Moore maintained that "good" is an indefinable primitive, especially that it cannot be defined as something in the natural world, such as Bentham's pleasure, Mill's utility, the evolutionary theorists's survival, or even life itself.To identify good with something natural is called Moore's naturalistic fallacy. But since infinite regression is a fallacy, the chain of causation must stop at the most basic levels. So the refutal goes: What caused God?! Quick Reference. Infinite regress is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. *(This fact is equivalent to the fact that the universe is mathematically describable. Infinite regress is false. The regression (or regressive) fallacy is an informal fallacy. If the reasons count as knowledge, they must themselves be justified with reasons for the reasons, and so on, ad infinitum. Despite assertions from many mathematicians, the word "infinity" is actually meaningless. Proof of Infinite Regression's Fallacy The starting guess is that infinite regression is a contradiction, and like all contradictions assuming it is true results in finding that you can use it to prove anything. Prior to that Zeno of Elia used the notion that an infinite regress is an absurdity in the … The problem of the infinite regress was a critical argument of the Skeptics in ancient philosophy. An infinite regression is when we use one premise to infer another premise, and then we repeat that ad … And there is no end to it. The evolutionist again gave a seemingly logical answer, but one that didn't prove the premises. Another little man inside his head. I've read one arguer that claimed it was a fallacy due to the arguments for … Reason Y depends on phenomenon X. is a fallacy. Proof of Infinite Regression's Fallacy The starting guess is that infinite regression is a contradiction, and like all contradictions assuming it is true results in finding that you can use it to prove anything. Whether all things must have a "first cause" or not, is a subject of debate. We don’t try […] For if we have an infinite amount of preceding events then we can never get to where we are now, that there must ultimately be a ‘first cause’ or ‘prime mover’. Infinite regression in itself is not a fallacy. Reason Y is given. Source: Aristotle refers to the impossibility of an infinite regress in his proof of the unmoving mover (Physics, 8.1). (This is what the argument is postulating). That it is a logical fallacy does not mean X or Y is not true. Date: 25 July 2012: Source: File:Cartesian_Theater.svg: Author: Original work: Jennifer Garcia (User:Reverie) Derivative work: User:Pbroks13; Derivative work of derivative work: User:Was a bee; Permission (Reusing this file) This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 … This raises the question of what set the original chain in motion—in short, what was the "first cause." When asked why he believed in evolution, the evolutionist gave a good concise answer. Reason Y is given. This series of numbers could continue positively and negatively forever. The 'regression' is that it must keep going backward, and it is 'infinite' because each one must be based upon a previous one. You could say another god ad infinitum, which is essentially what the regressive explanation for the origin of the universe does. Infinity is a logical fallacy. then what created god? He states, “They [cosmological arguments] make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.” 1. Ix) reads "there exists an x such that x is a number and x is infinite," and is a supposition for the sake of argument. This is what he means by 'countable'. It's embarrassing. Infinite Regression is a term that has come up in the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate. Infinite regress is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. OK, … Why not make the universe the … It looks like physics will actually get more fundamental than this, but the logic is the same; why is the ToE or GUT true? Moore's naturalism has much in common with that of David Hume. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. It is a relevant in the discussion of Kalam. Idea of 'internal viewer' generates infinite regress of internal viewers.. Infinite regressions are possible in reality. This is the point where the theists respond "God is infinite, he wasn't created." a fallacy in which the argument proposes an explanation, but the mechanism proposed stands just as much in need of explanation as the original fact to be explained — and indeed it stands in need of the same kind of explanation. To conceive of a reality outside of this is not meaningfully fathomable, and therefore irrelevant to the question. The simplification of the argument is the following: Anything complex must have been created by something with intelligence. The Münchhausen Trilemma, sometimes called Agrippa's … Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between premise and conclusion. You guessed it. If it ends then it is a contradiction of terms. They can never rationally claim that there are laws of logic or laws of nature. Just because. . For example, in mathematics we can think of a series of numbers without end: …–3,–2,–1,0,1,2,3 . @solacyon please note that the comments section is not for discussion. So, if a number is countable, then counting the individual parts and finally reaching the number is traversing, which means the number is traversable. Why does an electron exist? 1 A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. Infinite regress definition is - an endless chain of reasoning leading backward by interpolating a third entity between any two entities. The Logical Fallacy of Infinite Regress / Homunculus Argument occurs when an argument forms an endless loop of dependent premises, never reaching a premise that can stand as true on its own. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. People do not like it because it is not clean. Reason Y depends on phenomenon X. The original homunculus argument in which it is stated that we see because there is an image projected in our head which a little man, a homunculus, sees. In Dawkins' 'The God Delusion', he says God almost certainly doesn't exist due to infinite regress. You would think that the decay of particles and increase of entropy in a system would be a micrcosmic example of the same process at a macrocosmic scale.. and yet the concept of a pure nothingness is senseless. The other option I am aware of is a circular chain of events. This page was last modified on 14 May 2020, at 16:35. Yes. (From the book Zero, if 1=0, Winston Churchill is a carrot.) [6] Stalinist examples include Khorloogiin Choibalsan of Mongolia, Georgi Dimitrov of Bulgaria, Klement Gottwald of Czechoslovakia, Enver Hoxha of Albania, Kim Il Sung of North Korea, and Konstantin Chernenko of the Soviet Union. This went on for over an hour, which a tribute to this evolutionist. This statement does not involve an infinite regress because being preceded by an event is not a necessary condition for being an event. An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause it. He suggests that God is part of the chain, so he would need to be part of an infinite regression. It is too large a leap from First Cause or Prime Mover to God. An evolutionist wanted to debate his creationist friend. An infinite regression follows the form: P 1 causes Q 1; Q 2 causes P 1; P 3 causes Q 2; Q 4 causes P 3; And so on, forever Also applies to constructing objects out of particles; … This creator must be complex in order to have created something complex. Infinite regress of homunculus. We don’t play mind games between the proof and the conclusion. Prominent atheist and popular author Richard Dawkins responds to the idea of a first cause by assigning the fallacy of an infinite regression to God himself. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. An erroneous interpretation of regression towards the mean as being caused by something other than chance. We don’t add unproven claims on the way to the conclusion, and the premise must prove that the conclusion is true. Infinite Regression is a term that has come up in the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate. An example that has been used to explain the problem is that of the soldier waiting for orders to fire. The point of infinite regression is that it never provides any proof that does not itself need to be proved, so it appears to present evidence, yet the evidence is never shown to be valid. He also has a little man inside his head, but how does this little man see? We don’t play mind games between the proof and the conclusion. Infinite regress is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. The fallacy of Infinite Regress occurs when this habit lulls us into accepting an explanation that turns out to be itterative, that is, the mechanism involved depends upon itself for its own explanation. This time, the evolutionist got a very surprised look on his face. An infinite regression is a proposed chain of causation in which each purported cause itself requires another event of exactly the same type to cause it. We must prove that the proof is true before using the proof to prove that the conclusion is true. The creationist didn't want to debate but agreed to discuss. Well, it just is. In folklore and in literature, homunculus often refers to a miniature fully-formed human. Another method is to assume that the Creator is the First Cause and is the only Entity that is Past-Eternal (and Future-Eternal). An example that has been used to explain the problem is that of the soldier waiting for orders to fire. If unsupported assertion, infinite regression, or circular reasoning were the only three options, no matter which of these three are chosen, nothing can be known. The 'regression' is that it must keep going backward, and it is 'infinite' because each one must be based upon a previous one. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. [6]:212,216,242,252,279, Argument from oh bloody hell that was years ago, Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur, Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, Negative conclusion from affirmative premises, https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Infinite_regress&oldid=2183521, ∴There does not exist a number that is infinite. Aristotle regarded numbers as made up of composite parts. [4]:178[5] More recently, Daniel Kalder has used homunculus to refer primarily to the heads of puppet states who felt compelled to follow the party line while at the same time not showing any innovation from the party canon. This raises the question of what set the original chain in motion--in short, what was the "first cause." 3. Many of you, I think, I have heard of the argument against infinite regression. The creationist asked for the reason that the evolutionist thought that the premise of his answer was true. The cosmological argument, according to Edwards, commits the fallacy of composition because it assumes that because each part of the universe is caused that therefore the universe as a whole must have a cause, but that doesn't take into account the possibility of an infinite regress of events. The problem of the infinite regress was a critical argument of the Skeptics in ancient philosophy. We must prove that the proof is true before using the proof to prove that the conclusion is true. However, many atheists reject this theory as they believe that the idea of infinite regress is very plausible. The ‘infinite regress’ argument posits that we cannot have an infinite amount of preceding events or causes. A regression fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an extreme value of some randomly varying event (something exceptional) is accepted as the normal value, and so when the value regresses to the mean, this change is believed to have been caused by some other event.. This example is a true story. What is clear to me is that no one can PROVE either the existence of God or matter with out cause with any rational bulletproof argument. Ultimately it is logically incoherent because our premise exists within the space-time continuum. File:Infinite regress of homunculus.png. The ‘infinite regress’ argument posits that we cannot have an infinite amount of preceding events or causes. (b) The Fallacy of Infinite Regression (c) The Fallacy of Composition 2 Hume attacking the link between causes and effects (a) You cannot see the link between causes and effect but we assume it based on what we have observed to happen in our past experience (b) Habit makes us link cause and effect together Objection: The Fallacy of Infinite Regression. All events rely on a precursor event in a causal chain of events. A regression fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an extreme value of some randomly varying event (something exceptional) is accepted as the normal value, and so when the value regresses to the mean, this change is believed to have been caused by some other event. The Logical Fallacy of Infinite Regress / Homunculus Argument occurs when an argument forms an endless loop of dependent premises, never reaching a premise that can stand as true on its own. This fails to account for natural fluctuations. A secularist can never rationally say that he or she knows anything. The universe naturally expands and contracts only to expand again. a fallacy in which the argument proposes an explanation, but the mechanism proposed stands just as much in need of explanation as the original fact to be explained — and indeed it stands in need of the same kind of explanation. Alias: The Regressive Fallacy 1 Taxonomy: Logical Fallacy > Informal Fallacy > Non Causa Pro Causa > The Regression Fallacy Etymology: To "regress" is to go back, or revert to an earlier or more primitive state. In a similar … It isn't even infinite. Logical infinite regress is a feature … http://www.theaudiopedia.com What is REGRESSION FALLACY? And that brings us to the wholly unsupported assertion that infinite regression of causes is even a fallacy at all. This seemingly impossible regression is considered a fallacy when it means that the believer must then have an infinite number of ideas in his head; yet only God is said to be that infinite, so can it be true or is it a real fallacy? The point of infinite regression is … It only means it's not a convincing argument. Most people don't want to reveal their true reasoning, not even to themselves. (This is what the argument is postulating). A finite universe would require a cause and therefore lead to infinite regression (what caused the first cause, what caused that cause, etc.) We don’t try […] It assumes that something has returned to normal because of corrective actions taken while it was abnormal. Explore discussion on the topic - Is the paradox of infinite regress a fallacy? So the creationist again asked for the proof of the proof. Infinite regress: Saying that infinite (without a beginning) number of past events must be concluded before any thing leaves the realm of existence leads to infinite regress. (b) Explain in your own words the problem with using the idea of infinite regression to criticise the Cosmological argument Challenges to the Cosmological Argument—Ways 1 & 2 The argument that infinite regression into eternity past would never allow us to arrive at the present kind of sounds silly. This video will example you the infinite regression fallacy. Ernie: Think of it as a … (also known as: homunculus argument, infinite regress) Description: An argument that accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain, which results in an infinite regress. For even one infinite regression to work you must already know that every … (see Agrippa's Trilemma). It can't be infinite because that would create an infinite regression of causation, which is a fallacy and therefore impossible, which leaves us with a finite universe that needs a cause. For Hume to say that every event is caused by another event is to say little more than that every even is preceded by another event. Because by definition infinite series of past events cannot be concluded (it doesnot end). Thus this "creator" must have … Why can't we apply this same argument to the Big Bang theory, for instance (the origin of the universe arose from somthing which arose from something else ad infinitum). Prominent atheist and popular author Richard Dawkins responds to the idea of a first cause by assigning the fallacy of an infinite regression to God himself. Go to 1:15.That's how I just said "exxxxactly" when I read that, James. An infinite regress arises when we ask what are the justifications for the reasons themselves. Because by definition infinity does not end. Instead I've seen him defend the Big Bang theory with the "Something … so it is tempting to apply the explanation to itself. The "Turtles all the way down" anecdote illustrates a popular example of infinite regress: The term "homunculus" first appeared in Paracelsus' writing on alchemy, De Natura Rerum (1537),[3] referring to what later became known as sperm after the invention of the microscope. An infinite regress is an infinite series of occurrences or concepts. 3 The Fallacy of Regression problem (a) Why do philosophers usually reject the idea that there are infinite regressions? The important thing here is that it's being claimed that asserting there is an infinite number of explanatory events is inherently fallacious – in particular this preacher asserted that it's a "vicious infinite regress," which I can only satisfactorily define as a regression that posits new explanations to account for a cause, explanations that themselves require explanations. An infinite regression is a proposed chain of causation in which each purported cause itself requires another event of exactly the same type to cause it. In nature around us, we have infinite series, so why shouldn't nature itself be an infinite series? Whether referring to the origins of the universe or any other regressive context, the answer simply moves the question back into infinite regress rather than answering it. We don’t add unproven claims on the way to the conclusion, and the premise must prove that the conclusion is true. If Aristotle had thought of the number 42, he would have thought that it was composed of 42 individual parts. Example #1: Bert: How do eyes project an image to your brain? Then there could be an infinite series of causes and effects which had no beginning, Response: Big Bang suggests universe does have a beginning… The oldest practical illustration of the concept of infinite … It didn't go to infinity, of course, but it went longer than most questioners have patience and most who answer those questions will allow. Sextus Empiricus tells us there are two basic Pyrrhonian modes or tropes that lead the … This turns out the be the case, though in a somewhat interesting manner. If the truth of a premise P1 is proven by premise P2, and the truth of premise P2 is proven by premise P3, and this pattern continues without being resolved, this is infinite regress. argument that shows an infinite regress to result in a contradiction This seemingly impossible regression is considered a fallacy when it means that the believer must then have an infinite number of ideas in his head; yet only God is said to be that infinite, so can it be true or is it a real fallacy? regression fallacy. An infinite universe dissolves this causal regression Do you think the fallacy of infinite regress proves there is an uncaused cause? Classical illustrations of infinite regression. The fallacy is a causation fallacy and an informal fallacy. Infinite regress: Saying that infinite (without a beginning and end) number of past events must be concluded before any thing leaves the realm of existence leads to infinite regress. The simplification of the argument is the following: Anything complex must have been created by something with intelligence. Some people saythat Intelligent Design is an example of infinite regression. 8. For example, in mathematics we can think of a series of numbers without end: …–3,–2,–1,0,1,2,3 . a simpler example would be: what created the universe? There is no a-priori reason why an infinite regress cannot occur. (However the argument doesn't prove or set out to prove the God of Classical Theism.) At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and … This series of numbers could continue positively and negatively forever. So, even if your opponent could establish (which he cannot) that infinite regression of causes is a fallacy (take a look at this list of fallacies), he cannot reject the conclusion that the universe could be infinite as impossible. Infinite regression is one of the three possible invalid basis for secularist thinking, the other two are circular reasoning and assumption. For if we have an infinite amount of preceding events then we can never get to where we are now, that there must ultimately be a ‘first cause’ or ‘prime mover’. The question is, how does the little man see? It's a fallacy because it is begging the question that is to say that it is a circular argument. [3], In the Eastern Bloc, homunculus has referred to attempts to remold people to be "without sexual, high intellectual or high emotional 'centres'". It is not an argument against evolution but rather an example of infinite regress. Some people saythat Intelligent Design is an example of infinite regression. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. You can construct any chain of causality like a proof; this cause happened and therefore there was this effect, and that effect caused a … Causal infinite regress is featured in the uncaused cause and cosmological argument. 'Traversing' is the act of counting. INFINITE REGRESSION. In other words, there was no proof of the proof. Moore's naturalism has much in common with that of David Hume.Hume claimed that we cannot … This is the wrong way around. No evidence for this has ever been presented for peer review, or critical analysis of any kind. Why should we make God the exception? Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. 1 An example 2 Another Example: Who created the creator? Infinite Regression versus Causality Because infinite regression is a fallacy, the fact that quantum mechanics isn't entirely deterministic should be completely unsurprising. – user2953 Dec 31 '15 at 11:10 | show 3 more comments. – sol acyon Dec 31 '15 at 11:09. If the reasons count as knowledge, they must themselves be justified with reasons for the reasons, and so on, ad infinitum. Despite that, the response to this is an example of special pleading: creationists assert that every being needs a cause, but God is an eternal presence which did not need a cause. 3 Classical illustrations … G. E. Moore maintained that "good" is an indefinable primitive, especially that it cannot be defined as something in the natural world, such as Bentham's pleasure, Mill's utility, the evolutionary theorists's survival, or even life itself.To identify good with something natural is called Moore's naturalistic fallacy. Whether all things must have a "first cause" or not, is a subject of debate. The argument is based on many unsupported premises relating to free will, consciousness, animacy, being alive, having a nervous system, and existing, and their relationship to rights (right to ___ needs to … Given the definitions of the terms and the logical validity of the argument, Aristotle concluded that there exist no infinite numbers. Objection: The Fallacy of Infinite Regression. All three leave the secularist with the problem of no real basis for making any conclusions. so it is tempting to apply the explanation to itself. Aristotle says that if a number is truly infinite, it can't be traversed because the end of the number can't ever be reached. If there is a first cause, that event necessarily must come from itself or from nothing in order to break the chain. For example Aquinas … If we imagine a soldier waiting for … http://www.theaudiopedia.com What is REGRESSION FALLACY? An infinite regress arises when we ask what are the justifications for the reasons themselves. This isn't an infinite regress. Then, he blurted out, "I guess I'm making the whole thing up.". Re: Infinite Regression by GreatandWiseTrixie » Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:11 am For this discussion, universe means the collection of galaxies we call "the universe" However, there came a time when the creationist asked, "And what convinces you of that?" Infinite regression Main Article: Infinite regression. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. god. The second ring of the doorbell could just as well have been … 4 The infinite regress argument will not, however, work for Humean causes. Contents. Whether all things must have a "first cause" or not, is a subject of debate. This turns out the be the case, though in a somewhat interesting manner. So the argument goes: Everything has a cause, so the universe therefore must have a cause. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. In these cases, an infinite regress argument can show us thatwe have reason to reject a theory, but it is not because the theoryyields a regress per se, but rather because it has this otherbad feature, and the regress has revealed that. This does hold in a Secularist worldview. An infinite regress is where the validity of one proposition (A) depends on the validity of another (B), and the validity of B depends on C, infinitely down the line. Some argue he commits the Infinite Regress Fallacy by saying that infinite regress is wrong. He suggests that God is part of the chain, so he would need to be part of an infinite regression. This creator must be complex in order to have created something complex. He pulled his head back to think. What does REGRESSION FALLACY mean? The creationist answered again. . I don't think that that alone proves or disproves the existence of God. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy Explanation. Logical Form: Phenomenon X needs to be explained. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. It occurs in some philosophical concepts and is sometimes considered an unwanted or absurd implication. . Now, 'countable' and 'traversable' need to be defined. One method to stop this infinite regression is to assume that life does not need a creator. Homunculus fallacy. One example of a viciously infinite regression arises in intelligent design creationism, which states that there are problems in the theory of Darwinian evolution by natural selection which can only be resolved by invoking a designer or first cause without proposing a solution to the immediate question, "Who designed the designer?" The homunculus argument is a fallacy arising most commonly in the theory of vision.One may explain (human) vision by noting that light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or someone) in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie … What does REGRESSION FALLACY mean? This is why Aquinas rejects the idea of infinite regress, as he believes, that something must have set the whole chain of reactions off, for example something has to push the first domino for the chain reaction to start, and this being for Christians is the unmoved mover or in other terms God. Infinite regressions are possible in reality. Sometimes it is uncontroversial that a theory that generates aninfinite regress is objectionable, because the regress reveals thatthe theory suffers from some kind of theoretical vice that is a reasonto reject the theory independently of it yielding an infiniteregress. This argument is often used against the ideas of creationism and intelligent design. The fallacy is a causation fallacy and an informal fallacy. Logical Fallacy of Infinite Regress / Homunculus Argument, The Logical Fallacy of Unsubstantiated Inference, Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Worldview / Appeal to Fake-Reality / Appeal to Paradigm / Appeal to Confirmation Bias, Fantasy Projection / Worldview Projection / Fake-Reality Projection / Paradigm Projection / Context Projection, The Logical Fallacy ofAmazing Familiarity, Stolen Concept Fallacy / Smuggled Concept Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Proof by Theoretical Stories, The Logical Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence Presented as Scientific Evidence / Personal Testimony Presented as Scientific Evidence, Logical Fallacy of Dismissing All Personal Testimony, Logical Fallacy of Rewriting History / Have it Your Way, Logical Fallacy of Argument from Personal Incredulity / Personal Belief / Personal Conviction, Logical Fallacy of Argument by Lack of Imagination, Logical Fallacy of Argument by Imagination, The Logical Fallacy of Capturing the Naive / Argumentum ad Captandum / Argumentum ad Captandum Vulgus, Logical Fallacy of Argument from Personal Astonishment, Logical Fallacy of Unintended Self-Inclusion, Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion / Proof by Repeated Assertion, Logical Fallacy of Proof by Understatement / Misunderstanding by Understatement, Logical Fallacy of Proof by Logical Tautology, Logical Fallacy of Proof by False Declaration of Victory, Logical Fallacy of Assumption Correction Assumption, False Criteria Fallacy / Fallacy of Questionable Criteria, Logical Fallacy of Cutting Off Discussion / Summary Dismissal, Logical Fallacy of Thought-Terminating Cliche / ClicheThinking, Logical Fallacy of the Perfect Solution / Nirvana Fallacy / Perfect Solution Fallacy / Perfectionist Fallacy, Just In Case Fallacy / Worst Case Scenario Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Unwarranted Extrapolation, Logical Fallacy of Subjectivity / Relativist Fallacy / Subjectivist Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Bizarre Hypothesis/Theory / Far-Fetched Hypothesis/Theory, Logical Fallacy of Least Plausible Hypothesis, Logical Fallacy of Extravagant Hypothesis / Complex Hypothesis Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Privileging the Hypothesis, Logical Fallacy of False Appeal to Heaven / Appeal to Heaven / Gott Mit Uns / Manfest Destiny / Special Covenant, Logical Fallacy of Hedging / Having Your Cake / Failure to Assert / Diminished Claim / Failure to Choose Sides / Talking out of Both Sides of Your Mouth / If by Whiskey, Preacher's "We" / Salesman's "We" / Politician's "We" Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Argument from Hearsay / Telephone Game / Chinese Whispers / Anecdotal Evidence / Volvo Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Ad Hoc Rescue / Ad Hoc Hypothesis, The Logical Fallacy of Hindsight Bias / Knew-it-all-Along Effect / Creeping Determinism, Logical Fallacy of Continuum / Argument of the Beard / Fallacy of the Beard / Heap Fallacy / Heap Paradox Fallacy / Bald Man Fallacy / Continuum Fallacy / Line Drawing Fallacy / Sorites Fallacy, Logical Fallacy of Argument from Fallacy / Argumentum Ad Logicam, The Logical Fallacy of Reification / Anti-Conceptual Mentality Fallacy / Attributing Concreteness to the Abstract / Concretism / Hypostatization Fallacy / Objectification, Logical Fallacy of Reification / Personification, Logical Fallacy of Superstitious Thinking / Magical Thinking, Appeal to the Untested / Appeal to the Unknown Fallacy, Appeal to Pragmatism Fallacy / Pragmatic Fallacy / Appeal to Convenience / Pragmatism / Appeal to Utility / Argumentum Ad Convenientiam, How can we know anything about anything?