Logical Fallacy of Specificity

Specificity 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 Logical Fallacy of Specificity occurs when an overly specific conclusion is drawn from the evidence based on arbitrary limits that are placed on what can be concluded. This is a kind of jumping to conclusions.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Specificity

Fred Hutchison: "The science establishment has an agenda to prove that the mind consists entirely of brain activity and has no non-material component. This thesis is unprovable, of course. However, the establishment has unreasonably convinced itself that if links can be established between brain activity and thought, there must be nothing else going on during thinking other than brain activity. This is like saying that because eating is essential to survival, therefore, breathing is unnecessary.

The specificity fallacy arbitrarily limits a conclusion to specific categories of ideas. Scientists have grounds for concluding that brain activity plays a role in thinking, but no grounds for excluding non-material elements of the soul from participation in thinking."

The quote says it all. Naturalists dogmatically assert that all conclusions must exclude both the soul (mind), and the spirit. This is totally arbitrary except for the fact that it is a precept of the Atheist religious belief system.

"Science can only be applied to the natural realm. Therefore, all conclusions must be natural conclusions."

If we define "science" as only testing material and natural things, then we must exclude all conclusions that exclude the spiritual realm or into historical speculation. Think of eliminating all research into evolutionism, big bang, and billions of years. This will save billions of dollars in annual government budgets as funding will be taken away from scientists throughout the world who are delving into areas that science is not equipped to delve into--by this definition of "science." Many stories won't have to be learned by students attending schools so that they will have time to learn things that will help them become useful members of society. It will cause a great deal of unemployment, but, perhaps, those unemployed scientists could find a job doing something useful.