| Group Fallacy |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Relevance Fallacies of the Source
>
Group Fallacy
|
Group FallacyGroup fallacy occurs when a person is discredited because he or she belongs to a certian group. membership in any group would not negate every statement made by a person from that group simply because the person belongs to the group. There are certain things that are likely when someone belongs to a some groups, however. It is likely that someone who belongs to a group with the word, skeptic, in it's name is going to be skeptical about God and the Bible and very open to concepts such as Atheism, Agnosticism, or the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story for instance. Similar things could be said about various religions. Yet these stereotypes don't always hold. Evolutionists are not all Atheists or Racist, though the theology of Evolutionism is associated with these. You can sometimes say something about a person because of the group the person he or she belongs to. The group of people who believe in the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story, for instance, do not accept the Bible as it is written, since the Scriptural account, taken as it is written, is mutually exclusive to the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story. A person who is a member of the group that doesn't know Jesus Christ personally cannot be depended on for understanding Scripture, since understanding of Scripture must be revealed by the Holy Spirit. Examples of Group Fallacy
Evolutionists look at the same evidences that Creationists look at. They just interpret the evidence based on assumptions and stories rather than by Divine revelation, and some of Evolutionists have trouble discerning between what has been observed and what has been made up. However, many Evolutionists have a great understanding of the actual evidence. Some of them even realize that their stories are just stories and their assumptions are just assumptions. When discussing with them, it is good to keep in mind the biases and logical errors that they are likely to make, but they may know things about the evidence that you don't know. Just be careful to scrutinize what is presented as evidence to make sure it isn't dependent on an assumption, a story, or some other logical fallacy. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionAd Hominem Character Assassination Nominalization Creating Misgivings Circumstantial Ad Hominem Ad Hominem Ridicule Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Demonizing Demagoguery Dehumanizing Argumentum Ad Fidentia Tu Quoque Hypocrisy Genetic Fallacy Knights and Knaves Not Invented Here Corrupt Source Psychogenetic Fallacy Discrediting Guilt by Association Popular Prejudice Recently Viewed |
