| Sly Suggestion |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Ambiguity
>
Sly Suggestion
|
Sly Suggestion FallacySly suggestion 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. 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 regress, 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. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The Sly Suggestion Fallacy occurs when innuendo is used to suggest claims, but no statement of the claim is made without the hedge of innuendo. Examples of the Sly Suggestion Fallacy
There are a few sly suggestions in this statement. This is just one of the ways that Bill attempted to prove that only Ken Ham, and a few people who work at the Creation Museum, believe what God is saying about history through the Bible. Here, Bill carries this sly suggestion by referring to Creation science as "Mr. Ham's story." Ken Ham is a science teacher who has branched out. The scientific Creation Model is developed by PhD scientists throughout the world, not by Ken Ham. Bill used the phrase, "the outside," throughout the debate as a way to imply that the Creation Museum is some sort of a little secret society. Then, Bill used the term, "mainstream science," to imply a bandwagon fallacy and a no true scientist/Scotsman fallacy. In this short statement, Bill also used the label, "Mr. Ham," to make Ken seem less human and more rigid while Bill portrayed himself as fun-loving and charming. While all of this is great propaganda technique, Bill never proves anything during the debate other than that he is good at propaganda. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionAmbiguity Barnum Effect Ambiguous Assertion Innuendo Syntactic Ambiguity Lexical Ambiguity Homonymy Shingle Speech Use-Mention Error Double Entendre Misuse of Etymology Garden Path Ambiguity Squinting Modifier Quantifier Shift Illicit Observation Metaphorical Ambiguity Euphemism Equivocation Redefinition Middle Puzzle Part Idiosyncratic Language Type-Token Ambiguity Misconditionalization Modal Scope Fallacy Scope Fallacy Ambiguous Middle Hypnotic Bait and Switch Definist Fallacy Defining a Word in Terms of Itself Socratic Fallacy Defining Terms Too Broadly Defining Terms Too Narrowly Failure to Elucidate Persuasive Definition Composition / Exception Fallacy Division Etymological Fallacy Nominalization Inference from a Label Pigeonholing Fallacy Category Mistake Conjunction Fallacy Disjunction Fallacy Information Overload Proof by Verbosity Argument by Gibberish Confusing Contradiction with Contrariety Type-Token Ambiguity Conceptual Fallacy Mistaking an Entity for a Theory Butterfly Logic Process-Product Ambiguity Recently Viewed |
