Logical Fallacy of Illicit Process

Illicit process is a formal fallacy that covers up the problem when 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 Logical Fallacy of Illicit Process occurs when a term which is distributed in the conclusion is undistributed in the premise of any categorical syllogism.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Illicit Process

Logical Fallacy of Illicit Major

The logical fallacy of illicit major occurs when a premise is stated referring to only part of the class, but the conclusion referrs to the whole class.

Invalid Form of Illicit Major

S=subject, P=predicate, M=middle term

"All S are P" (Major Premise)

"No M  are S" (Minor Premise)

"Therefore, no M are P" (Fallacy of Illicit Major)

 Examples of Illicit Major

The minor term is the term that appears in the minor premise as the predicate. If it appears in the conclusion as the subject, it is undistributed. If we were to write the conclusion as, “Therefore, all S are M (Therefore, all Catholics are supposed to follow Jesus) then it would not be a fallacy.

"All Christ-followers are human beings."

"No person who is not following Christ is a Christ-follower."

"Therefore, no person who is not following Christ is a human being."

Subject = Christ-followers, Predicate = human beings, Minor Term = person who is not following Christ

This reasoning is invalid because the form is backwards. The first two premises are true, but the form is invalid, so the reasoning is not sound.

"All of those who are following Christ are people who have committed sins."

"No people who think they are naturally good are following Christ."

"Therefore, No people who think they are naturally good are people who have committed sins."

Subject = those who are following Christ, Predicate = people who have committed sins, Minor Term = people who think they are naturally good

The conclusion is wrong. It doesn't follow from the premises. All people who think they are naturally good are people who have committed sins. The major and minor premises are both true, but the conclusion is false. The form is not valid.

Logical Fallacy of Illicit Minor

The logical fallacy of illicit minor occurs when the the minor term of any form of categorical syllogism is distributed in the conclusion, but not in the minor premise.

Invalid Form of Illicit Minor

S=subject, P=predicate, M=middle term

"All S are P"

"All P are M"

"Therefore, all M are S"

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Illicit Minor

"All Catholics are Christian."

"All Christians are supposed to follow Jesus."

"Therefore, all who are supposed to follow Jesus are Catholic."

Subject = Catholics, Predicate = Christian, Minor Term = those supposed to follow Jesus

The minor term is the term that appears in the minor premise as the predicate. If it appears in the conclusion as the subject, it is undistributed. If we were to write the conclusion as, “Therefore, all S are M (Therefore, all Catholics are supposed to follow Jesus) then it would not be a fallacy.

"All Christians are human beings."

"All people in this church are human beings."

"Therefore, all people in this church are Christians."

This reasoning is not sound because the form is backwards.

"All Christians are human beings."

"All human beings are people who have committed sins and need to be forgiven."

"Therefore, all people who have committed sins and need to be forgiven are Christians."

The conclusion is untrue. Yet, the major and minor premises are true. The form is not valid, so the reasoning is not sound.