| Morton\'s Fork |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Choice
>
Morton\'s Fork
|
Morton’s Fork FallacyMorton's fork 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 Morton’s Fork Fallacy occurs when different observations or experiences lead to the same conclusion. Examples of the Morton’s Fork Fallacy
That is a good way to do confirmation bias. Theophilus Shickel Painter gave the world the official number of chromosomes in each human cell, 48. The technique was to count the number of chromosomes in a sperm or egg cell, knowing that the sperm and egg each have half of the chromosomes, and multiply by two. Theophilus Painter counted 24 and multiplied by 2 to get 48. As other scientists repeated his experiments, they confirmed the number to be 48. Theophilus Painter was a powerful authority. His number went unchallenged for over 30 years. Scientists counted the number to be 46, but refused to believe their eyes, since this powerful authority had declared it to be 46. No matter what was observed, the same conclusion was reached. Finally, in 1956, two brave researchers gave the correct count based on a different technique. Checking back in textbooks, photos showed clearly that there are 23 with a caption stating that there are 24. The human mind is easily tricked.
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionCorrelative Based Denying the Correlative Suppressing the Correlative False Dilemma Bifurcation Polarization Fallacy All-Or-Nothing Mistake Exhaustive Hypothesis Exclusivity False Trilemma Short Term versus Long Term Magician\'s Choice There Is No Alternative Alternative Advance Hobson\'s Choice Barefoot Fallacy Wicked Alternative Recently Viewed |