Incomplete Comparison Fallacy

Incomplete comparison 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 Incomplete Comparison Fallacy occurs when insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison, yet a comparison is proposed. The fact that a comparison is proposed isn't necessarily a fallacy. The fallacy would be in being unable to explain the difference and finish making the comparison. While some things are easy to compare because they are very simple, with more complex things, giving the entire comparison on every level and regarding every facet may not be possible. Incomplete knowledge is not a fallacy unless you claim to have all knowledge.

Examples of the Incomplete Comparison Fallacy

Sandy: "I am totally free as an Atheist. I'm so glad I turned away from religion."

Sandy is comparing freedom as an Atheist to freedom in some religion. What religion. Was Sandy a Christian? If so, did Sandy ever come to know Christ personally in a way that the Holy Spirit was leading him moment by moment? What is Sandy free from now as opposed to before? What is Sandy now free to do that Sandy could not do previously?

At this point, Sandy's statement is not necessarily a fallacy. What Sandy is thinking or implying is likely to be a fallacy. If Sandy were to try to answer the questions to fill in the blanks, some fallacies would probably show up.

Rocky: "I am totally free now that I have accepted Christ as my Savior."

At this point, Rocky hasn't really committed a fallacy, but his statement leaves many questions unanswered. What has he been freed from? What has he been freed to? What does it mean to accept Christ as his Savior? If Rocky has really been set free, then he has been set free from slavery to Satan. He still has a sinful nature, but he is no longer slave to it to obey its desires. He is free to know Christ personally and to have Christ direct him and teach him moment by moment. He is free to acknowledge the Voice of his Creator and to respond in submission, receiving the free gift of faith in the process. He is free to obey by the grace that comes when God's faith is given to him. He is free to have righteousness lead to holiness. He is free to stand in the Presence of God and experience His love. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sandy: "Evolution is more scientific."

What are we comparing evolution to? Does evolution mean the entire Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story, just the Molecules-to-Man story, the changes from generation to generation in living things, the equivocation that mixes all of these into a single definition of the word, "evolution," or something else? What is the definition of the word, "scientific." Does it mean the scientific method? Does it mean naturalistic and materialistic assumptions? Does it mean the bandwagon approach of the majority who are in control of scientific funding? It may be an equivocation between all of these meanings. The statement is meaningless as it stands.