Critical Thinking: Fallacies from Relevance XVII
Fallacies from Relevance
A fallacy from relevance occurs when the response to a conclusion or an argument is not relevant to the conclusion or argument. These are fallacies that ignore the point at hand and attempt to derail the argument by bringing irrelevancies into the arena of the debate.
In this post, I will discuss the Fallacy of the Complex Question. The Fallacy of the Complex Question uses biased language in place of reasoned, rational, logical argumentation. By refusing to address individual points, any conclusions reached as a result of following this fallacy are automatically unreliable.
Fallacy of the Complex Question
A complex question fallacy is essentially an illegitimate use of the “and” operator whether stated or implicit. This fallacy occurs when two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The opponent is expected to accept or reject both unrelated points together, when in reality each should be addressed individually.
A complex question fallacy can be revealed by identifying the two propositions that are illegitimately conjoined and showing that validity of one does not mean an interdependent validity of the other. A classic example is:
“Have you stopped beating your kids?”
Either a yes or a no answer would seem to imply that the person did in the past beat his children, which may not be the case. The question is “complex” because it should be divided into two questions independent questions:
- Did you ever beat your children?
- If so, have you now stopped?
The fallacy of the complex question is ridiculously common in Darwinist literature and as asked by Darwinists in the Darwin v Creation debate. Examples:
“Do you think that human beings are still evolving today?”
This end of chapter question from a 6th grade biology textbook commits the fallacy of the complex question in that it should be phrased into two questions.
- Did you think human beings evolved from lower forms of life?
- If so, do you think such evolution is still occurring today?
“How did dinosaurs survive for millions of years?”
This commits the fallacy of the complex question because it should be divided:
- Did dinosaurs actually survive for millions of years?
- If so, how?
“What is the mechanism by which reptiles evolved into birds?”
- Did reptiles evolve into birds?
- If so, what is the mechanism by which this took place?
Another form of the complex question fallacy is when an arguer asserts some form of, “Are you aware the fact that [some unproven truth claim]?” For example:
“Are you aware of the fact that the earth is billions of years old?”
This is the fallacy of the complex question because it should be divided:
- Is the earth billions of years old?
- If so, were you aware of that fact?
When the truth claim is proven and provable, this is not a fallacy. However, by asserting an unproven or unprovable truth claim as it it were fact in the form of an interrogative, the arguer is actually committing the fallacy of the complex question by begging the question. This is also a very popular means by which Darwinists attempt to advance Darwinian evolution using fallacious questions and biased language to persuade rather than logic, evidence, or actual facts.
“Are you aware of the fact that…
…all scientific evidence points to evolution?”
…we find rocks that are over 4 billion years old?”
…all scientists believe Darwin was right?”
Does all scientific evidence really point to Darwin? No. Is it therefore a fact? No. Can it be proven that rocks are over 4 billion years old? No. Do all scientists believe Darwin was right. Obviously not. Are these actually facts? No. Clearly, dividing these questions into their component propositions results in entirely independent answers.
The Fallacy of the Complex Question uses biased language in place of reasoned, rational, logical argumentation and should be avoided in any debate.
Conclusion:
Recognizing truth is an essential survival tool for the mind, and ultimately, for the soul. It is vital that believers weigh the so-called “wisdom” of the world on the perfect scale of authoritative scripture. (I Corinthians 1:19-21)
Teaching our children the ability to recognize fallacies of this type, giving them the intellectual skill to deconstruct these types of arguments, will ensure that the arguments they, themselves, will one day make are at least valid and thoughtfully arrived upon. It will also assist them to investigate more deeply into the conclusions espoused by those in the world whose motives might not come from love and might not have been very carefully arrived at or well researched.
Gregg
I’m so grateful for your visit, today.
You would bless me if you added me to your 
feed reader or subscribed 
via email.
You can also become a fan on 
Facebook or follow me on 
Twitter. I would love to see more of you!
Pin It
Hi Gregg,
.
I really like this post. The only comment I have is that it depends on context. If I say “Here is a video of you beating your kids a year ago. Have you stopped beating your kids?” I’m not committing this fallacy.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
“Here is a video of you beating your kids a year ago. Have you stopped beating your kids?” I’m not committing [complex question] fallacy.
.
—————-
.
Well, no, of course not. Nor have you provided an example of even a potentially complex question fallacy. If you think you have, you are guilty of committing the fallacy of a weak analogy. Allow me to demonstrate.
.
What you wrote are two very distinct ideas in the form of sentences (separated by punctuation, even) and they therefore do not conflate two diverse ideas and treat them as a single proposition — which would be necessary to commit the complex question fallacy.
.
The structure of your example is:
.
1. It is the case that you beat your kids in the past.
2. Have you stopped doing so?
.
You have two diverse propositions treated individually. The second proposition in the form of the interrogative builds on the context provided by the initial proven or provable proposition that is in the form of a statement. You are correct in saying that this does not commit the fallacy because it does not conflate two diverse ideas. The complex question fallacy occurs, as I said in my post, when two otherwise unrelated points — very often with one or more of the ideas in question being unproven or unprovable — are conjoined and treated as a single proposition — which you have not done in your comment.
.
Likewise, as I said in my post, when the truth claim is proven and provable, it may not be a fallacy because you have context for the diverse ideas. The structure mirrors the structure you provided in your example and looks like this:
.
1. Since it is the case that [proven and provable claim]…
2. Question pertaining specifically to the above claim?
.
By asserting an unproven or unprovable truth claim as it it were fact in the form of an interrogative, the arguer can commit the fallacy of the complex question by begging the question. The structure would be something like:
.
1. Since I assert that it is the case though it may or may not be the case that [Unproven or unprovable claim]…
2. Question pertaining specifically to the above claim?
.
In the example in my post, it may or may not be the case that you beat your kids, so this is a classic example of a complex question fallacy. Have you stopped beating your wife? Have you stopped committing adultery? Have you stopped cheating on your taxes? In the absence of the initial proposition being the case, these all are good examples of the complex question fallacy.
.
God Bless,
Gregg