|Misrepresenting the Facts Fallacy|
Misrepresenting the Facts Fallacy
Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Misrepresentation of facts 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 Misrepresenting Fallacy Misrepresenting the Facts: occurs when a claim is supported by a false premise where the premise is based incorrect information. It is a fallacy of misrepresentation. The straw man fallacy is also a fallacy of misrepresentation, but it misrepresents what someone else has said or what they stand for. The misrepresentation of facts fallacy affects the premises because the facts the are behind the premises are misrepresented. All misrepresenting the facts fallacies are counterfactual fallacies, but some counterfactual fallacies affect the premises and some counterfactual fallacies are given without any premises.
Examples of Misrepresenting the Facts Fallacy
There are unsupported assertions based on unwarranted extrapolation and presupposed assumptions in this statement.
The fact that is misrepresented is in this part of the statement: ". . . the information that you use to create your worldview is not consistent with what I as a reasonable man would expect."
The fact that is misrepresented is that the Bible is not consistent with what a reasonable man would expect. There is also a second misrepresented fact in that Bill, as an unreasonable and dogmatic man misrepresents himself as a reasonable man. A reasonable man would not use fallacies. And a reasonable man would not commit the reasonable man fallacy. What Bill would expect is based on his own worldview. His own inner fake-reality. A reasonable man would realize this and not trust his own thoughts so much without examining the evidence objectively. Bill is being unreasonable in many way as the following shows.
There was one kind of cat on the Ark. It might have been a lion. What the cat on the Ark was like, we don't know. By presupposing a lion, Bill is committing a fallacy. OK. Let's imagine for a moment that it was a lion.
So let’s assume, just for a moment, that a 21st Century lion was on the Ark. Even if that were true, which is unlikely, Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of unwarranted extrapolation. This is not what a reasonable man would do. We have no idea what these particular cats were like before the Flood or on the Ark. They would probably have been young adults, but we don't know. We have no idea the extent to which God intervened to keep the animals in control. Perhaps only some animals had fallen to the point of being carnivores at that time, but we don’t know. We have no idea of the design of the cages that Noah may have built.
We do know that God gave the design for the Ark and that God did it in such a way that it would work. We know this by revelation. Bible skeptics tend to use a mindset that says, "If I can make any assumptions that would make something in the Bible impossible, that proves that the Bible has an error." That is irrational thinking.
When Bill uses the word, “and,” he is using it to connect two thoughts, implying that they make sense together. They don’t make sense together. Here is the logic:
What if they weren't lions? What if they weren't carniverous? What if they were in cages?
When Bill says that a reasonable man would not expect what the Bible says, he is using the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. Just claiming to be the reasonable one and claiming that Ken Ham is not reasonable doesn't make it so. In fact, it's a bit childish. This is the same as saying, "I, Bill Nye, am a reasonable man because I say that I am; therefore, believe me. And anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable; therefore, don't believe them."
and (package deal fallacy)
a sane person would not believe the Bible (assertion contrary to fact).
Bill Nye is using innuendo to cover a fallacy of unsupported assertion. Bill Nye is assuming that this is really about a comparison of Ken Ham's worldview versus Bill Nye's worldview--except that Bill thinks that his own worldview is real reality and not a worldview/fake-reality at all.
Everyone has a worldview, a fake-reality. We all have the problem that our fake-reality seems more real to us than real reality. However,the comparison is between Bill Nye's fake-reality and what God is revealing by Divine revelation.
And, the fact is that the physical evidence supports Creation and the Flood much better than it supports the notion that everything made itself. Bill Nye's fake-reality has to explain away several scientific laws. The revelation that God gives has no such problems. There is nothing that is observed scientifically that in any way conflicts with a young Earth, Creation, and the Flood.
While Bill's statement about throwing away ideas taht are not tenable may hold for many things, the discussion is about the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story, as story that is propped up by many fallacies and that survives by intimidation and message control. Bill's performance during the debate is testimony to closed-mindedness. However, the fact is that anyone who challenges this sacred cow of the elite of the "scientific community," will find himself or herself ostracized and fighting to keep his or her job. Bill is totally misrepresting the facts.
Last updated: Sep, 2014
Toons & Vids
Logical Fallacy of Proof by Fallacy
Proof Surrogate / Evidence Surrogate
Error in Observation
Misrepresenting the Facts Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Distorted Evidence
Logical Fallacy of Unverified Evidence
Logical Fallacy of Hysteron Proteron
The Logical Fallacy of Unsubstantiated Inference
Assuming Facts Not In Evidence
Logical Fallacy of Wishful Thinking
Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Worldview / Appeal to Fake-Reality / Appeal to Paradigm / Appeal to Confirmation Bias
Logical Fallacy of Slippery Slope
Logical Fallacy of Limited Scope
Logical Fallacy of Mind Reading
Logical Fallacy of Shoehorning
Logical Fallacy of Confirmation Bias
Sacred Cow Fallacy
Fantasy Projection / Worldview Projection / Fake-Reality Projection / Paradigm Projection / Context Projection
Group Think Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Context Imposition
The Logical Fallacy ofAmazing Familiarity
Stolen Concept Fallacy / Smuggled Concept Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Weak Inference
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 Proof by Model
Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assumption
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 Special Pleading
Logical Fallacy of Variant Imagization
Logical Fallacy of Self-Exclusion
Logical Fallacy of Unintended Self-Inclusion
Ad Personam Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion / Proof by Repeated Assertion
Logical Fallacy of Cherishing the Zombie
Logical Fallacy of Argumentum Ad Lapidem
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 Truism
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 Untestability
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 Canceling Hypotheses
Logical Fallacy of Appeal to False Faith
Logical Fallacy of False Appeal to Heaven / Appeal to Heaven / Gott Mit Uns / Manfest Destiny / Special Covenant
Logical Fallacy of Inaccurate Models
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 Appeal to Nature
Logical Fallacy of Experimenter Bias
Fallacy of the Crucial Experiment
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
Logical Fallacy of Inflation of Conflict
Logical Fallacy of Infinite Regress / Homunculus Argument
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 Slothful Induction
Logical Fallacy of Superstitious Thinking / Magical Thinking
Logical Fallacy of Meaningless Question
Logical Fallacy of Proving Non-Existence
Argumentum ad Imaginibus
Statement of Conversion Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Outdated Information
Logical Fallacy of Argument by Laziness
Quantum Physics Fallacy
Fallacious Abstraction Fallacy
Appeal to the Untested / Appeal to the Unknown Fallacy
Grasping at Straws
Appeal to Pragmatism Fallacy / Pragmatic Fallacy / Appeal to Convenience / Pragmatism / Appeal to Utility / Argumentum Ad Convenientiam
Appeal to Fake Hope
Appeal to Intuition Fallacy
Appeal to Mystery Fallacy
Argument from Design Fallacy
Fallacy of Imaginary Evidence
Monopolizing the Question / Hypophora
Fallacy of Antecedent / Fallacy of Time
Faulty Sign / Faulty Predictor Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Pretentious Premise
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Argument to the Future
Love Between a Man and Woman
Righteousness & Holiness
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
The Real Purpose of the Church
The Real Purpose of Life
From Glory to Glory
REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT
REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT
How to be Led by God
How to Witness
Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality
Holiness & Mind/Soul
Redemption: Free From Sin
Stories Versus Revelation
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Public School Failures