500 MB Nyheder Direkte fra Internet 2/500 MB nyheder direkte fra internet CD 2.iso/start/data/text/faq-0116.txt

Text File | 1995-05-06 | 32KB | 798 lines

Archive-name: atheism/logic
Alt-atheism-archive-name: logic
Last-modified: 3 June 1994
Version: 2.0

                        CONSTRUCTING A LOGICAL ARGUMENT

Introduction

   There is a great deal of argument on Usenet. Unfortunately, most of it
   is of very poor quality. This document attempts to provide a gentle
   introduction to logic, in the hope of improving the general level of
   debate.

   Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference
   [Concise OED]. Logic allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning, and
   determine whether it is correct or not. To use the technical terms, we
   determine whether the reasoning is valid or invalid.

   One does not need to study logic in order to reason correctly.
   However, a little basic knowledge of logic is often helpful when
   constructing or analyzing an argument.

   Note that I am not claiming that logic is universally applicable. That
   issue is very much open to debate. This document only explains how to
   use logic; you must decide whether logic is the right tool for the
   job.

   Note also that this document deals only with simple boolean logic.
   Other sorts of mathematical logic, such as fuzzy logic, obey different
   rules. When people talk of logical arguments, though, they generally
   mean the type being described here.

Basic concepts

   The building blocks of a logical argument are propositions, also
   called statements. A proposition is a statement which is either true
   or false; for example:

     "The first programmable computer was built in Cambridge."

     "Dogs cannot see colour."

     "Berlin is the capital of Germany."

   Propositions may be either asserted (said to be true) or denied (said
   to be false). Note that this is a technical meaning of "deny", not the
   everyday meaning.

   The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the particular
   arrangement of words used. So "A God exists" and "There exists a God"
   both express the same proposition.

What is an argument?

   An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series
   of statements to establish a definite proposition". There are three
   stages to an argument: Premises, inference, and conclusion.

  STAGE ONE: PREMISES

   One or more propositions will be are necessary for the argument to
   continue. They must be stated explicitly. They are called the premises
   of the argument. They are the evidence (or reasons) for accepting the
   argument and its conclusions.

   Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as
   "because", "since", "obviously" and so on.

   (The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with suspicion, as it can be
   used to intimidate others into accepting dubious premises. If
   something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to question it.
   You can always say "Oh, yes, you're right, it is obvious" when you've
   heard the explanation.)

  STAGE TWO: INFERENCE

   The premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions.
   This process is known as inference. In inference, we start with one or
   more propositions which have been accepted. We then derive a new
   proposition. There are various forms of valid inference.

   The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further
   inference. Inference is often denoted by phrases such as "implies
   that" or "therefore".

  STAGE THREE: CONCLUSION

   Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument, another
   proposition. The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of
   inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the
   inference from them. Conclusions are often indicated by phrases such
   as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude" and so on.

Types of argument

   There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and inductive.
   A deductive argument provides conclusive proof of its conclusions; if
   the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. A deductive
   argument is either valid or invalid.

   A valid argument is defined as one where if the premises are true,
   then the conclusion is true.

   An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some evidence
   for the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments are not valid or
   invalid, but we can talk about whether they are better or worse than
   other arguments. We can also discuss how probable their premises are.

   There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither
   deductive nor inductive. However, this document concentrates on
   deductive arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous and
   convincing.

   Here is an example of a deductive argument:
     * Every event has a cause (premise)
     * The universe has a beginning (premise)
     * All beginnings involve an event (premise)
     * This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event
       (inference)
     * Therefore the universe has a cause (inference and conclusion)

   Note that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in another
   argument. A proposition can only be called a premise or a conclusion
   with respect to a particular argument; the terms do not make sense in
   isolation.

Recognizing an argument

   Sometimes an argument will not follow the order described above. For
   instance, the conclusions might be stated first, and the premises
   stated afterwards in support of the conclusion. This is perfectly
   valid, if sometimes a little confusing.

   Arguments are harder to recognize than premises or conclusions. Many
   people shower their writing with assertions without ever producing
   anything which one might reasonably describe as an argument. Some
   statements look like arguments, but are not.

   For example:

     "If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an
     evil liar, or the Son of God."

   The above is not an argument, it is a conditional statement. It does
   not assert the premises which are necessary to support what appears to
   be its conclusion. (Even if we add the assertions, it still suffers
   from a number of other logical flaws -- see the section on this
   argument in "Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions".)

   Another example:

     "God created you; therefore do your duty to God."

   The phrase "do your duty to God" is neither true nor false. Therefore
   it is not a proposition, and the sentence is not an argument.

   Causality is important. Suppose we are trying to argue that there is
   something wrong with the engine of a car. Consider two statements of
   the form "A because B". The first statement:

     "My car will not start because there is something wrong with the
     engine."

   The statement is not an argument for there being something wrong with
   the engine; it is an explanation of why the car will not start. We are
   explaining A, using B as the explanation. We cannot argue from A to B
   using a statement of the form "A because B".

   However, we can argue from B to A using such a statement. Consider:

     "There must be something wrong with the engine of my car, because it
     will not start."

   Here we are arguing for A, offering B as evidence. The statement "A
   because B" is then an argument.

   To make the difference clear, note that "A because B" is equivalent to
   "B therefore A". The two statements then become:

     "There is something wrong with the engine, therefore my car will not
     start."

   And:

     "My car will not start, therefore there is something wrong with the
     engine."

   If we remember that we are supposed to be arguing that there is
   something wrong with the engine, it is clear that only the second
   statement is a valid argument.

Implication in detail

   There is one very important thing to remember: The fact that a
   deductive argument is valid does not imply that its conclusion holds.
   This is because of the slightly counter-intuitive nature of
   implication, which we must now consider more carefully.

   Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions. However,
   an argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false
   propositions.

   For example:
     * All insects have wings (premise)
     * Woodlice are insects (premise)
     * Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)

   Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are
   false. If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion
   would be true. The argument is thus entirely valid.

   More subtly, we can reach a true conclusion from one or more false
   premises, as in:
     * All fish live in the sea (premise)
     * Dolphins are fish (premise)
     * Therefore dolphins live in the sea (conclusion)

   However, the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion
   through valid inference from true premises.

   We can therefore draw up a "truth table" for implication. The symbol
   "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T"
   and "F" represent true and false respectively.


Premise Conclusion Inference
   A        B        A=>B
----------------------------
   F        F         T
   F        T         T

   -- If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion
   can be true or false.

   T        F         F

   -- If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference
   must be invalid.

   T        T         T

   -- If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion
   must be true.

   A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true. A sound
   argument therefore arrives at a true conclusion. Be careful not to
   confuse sound arguments with valid arguments.

   Of course, we can criticize more than the mere soundness of an
   argument. In everyday life, arguments are almost always presented with
   some specific purpose in mind. As well as criticizing the argument
   itself, one can criticize the apparent intent of the argument. Such
   criticism is outside the scope of this document, however!

Further reading

   For a readable introduction to logic, try Flew's "Thinking Straight",
   listed in the atheist resources document. The document also lists
   LOGIC-L, a LISTSERV mailing list devoted to discussing the teaching of
   elementary logic.
     _________________________________________________________________

Fallacies

   To delve further into the structure of logical arguments would require
   lengthy discussion of linguistics and philosophy. It is simpler and
   probably more useful to summarize the major pitfalls to be avoided
   when constructing an argument. These pitfalls are known as fallacies.

   In everyday English the term "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken
   beliefs as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads to those
   beliefs. This is fair enough, but in logic the term is generally used
   to refer to a form of technically incorrect argument, especially if
   the argument appears valid or convincing.

   So for the purposes of this discussion, we define a fallacy as a
   logical argument which appears to be correct, but which can be seen to
   be incorrect when examined more closely. By studying fallacies we aim
   to avoid being misled by them.

   Below is a list of some common fallacies, and also some rhetorical
   devices often used in debate. The list is not intended to be
   exhaustive.

  ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM / APPEAL TO FORCE

   The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or
   the threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a
   conclusion. It is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as
   "might makes right". The force threatened need not be a direct threat
   from the arguer.

   For example:

     "... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those
     who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."

  ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

   Argumentum ad Hominem is literally "argument directed at the man".

   The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of
   trying to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the
   person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because the
   truth of an assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those
   asserting it.

   For example:

     "Atheism is an evil philosophy. It is practised by Communists and
     murderers."

   Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast upon the testimony of a
   witness by showing, for example, that he is a known perjurer. This is
   a valid way of reducing the credibility of the testimony given by the
   witness, and not Argumentum ad Hominem; however, it does not
   demonstrate that the witness's testimony is false. To conclude
   otherwise is to fall victim of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

   The circumstantial form of Argumentum ad Hominem is committed when a
   person argues that his opponent ought to accept the truth of an
   assertion because of the opponent's particular circumstances. For
   example:

     "It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you
     argue otherwise when you're quite happy to wear leather shoes?"

   This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for
   dismissing the opponent's argument.

   This fallacy can also be used as a means of rejecting a conclusion.
   For example:

     "Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad
     thing. You're white."

   This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when one alleges that
   one's adversary is rationalizing a conclusion formed from selfish
   interests, is also known as "poisoning the well".

  ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM

   Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This
   fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true
   simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it
   is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved
   true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is
   false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)

   Examples:

     "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

     "Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist.
     Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

   Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is
   generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.

   Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would
   produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such
   evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.

   For example:

     "A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume
     of water to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth
     as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the
     poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

   In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something
   has not occurred. We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not
   occurred, however. See also Shifting the Burden of Proof

  ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM

   This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The
   fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to pity for the sake of
   getting a conclusion accepted. For example:

     "I did not murder my mother and father with an axe. Please don't
     find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

  ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM

   This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People.
   To commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion
   by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often
   characterized by emotive language. For example:

     "Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."

     "The Bible must be true. Millions of people know that it is. Are you
     trying to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?"

  ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERUM

   This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It
   consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a
   proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

  ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM

   The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and
   win support for an assertion. For example:

     "Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

   This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example,
   reference to an admitted authority in a particular field may be
   relevant to a discussion of that subject. For example, we can
   distinguish quite clearly between:

     "Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

   and

     "Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent
     computer"

   Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions
   on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so
   it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the
   subject of machine intelligence.

  THE FALLACY OF ACCIDENT

   The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied to
   a particular case whose "accidental" circumstances mean that the rule
   is inapplicable. It is the error made when one goes from the general
   to the specific. For example:

     "Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you
     must dislike atheists."

   This fallacy is often committed by moralists and legalists who try to
   decide every moral and legal question by mechanically applying general
   rules.

  CONVERSE ACCIDENT / HASTY GENERALIZATION

   This fallacy is the reverse of the Fallacy of Accident. It occurs when
   one forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which
   are not representative of all possible cases. For example:

     "Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are
     insincere."

  SWEEPING GENERALIZATION / DICTO SIMPLICITER

   A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a
   particular situation in which the features of that particular
   situation render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization is
   the opposite of a hasty generalization.

  NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA / POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

   These are known as False Cause fallacies.

   The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when one identifies
   something as the cause of an event but it has not actually been shown
   to be the cause. For example:

     "I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared.
     So God cured me of the headache."

   The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is
   assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before
   the event. For example:

     "The Soviet Union collapsed after taking up atheism. Therefore we
     must avoid atheism for the same reasons."

  CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

   This fallacy is similar to Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. It asserts that
   because two events occur together, they must be causally related, and
   leaves no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the
   events.

  PETITIO PRINCIPII / BEGGING THE QUESTION

   This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as
   the conclusion reached.

  CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO

   This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which
   one wishes to reach. Often, the proposition will be rephrased so that
   the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:

     "Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence
     any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose
     his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their
     secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot
     be allowed to hold government office."

   Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same
   as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited
   as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on
   homosexual employees. Another example is the classic:

     "We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know
     that the Bible is true because it is the word of God."

  COMPLEX QUESTION / FALLACY OF INTERROGATION / FALLACY OF PRESUPPOSITION

   This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One example is
   the classic loaded question:

     "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

   The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which
   has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in
   cross-examination, when they ask questions like:

     "Where did you hide the money you stole?"

   Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as:

     "How long will this EC interference in our affairs be allowed to
     continue?"

   or

     "Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"

   Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something
   which is untrue or not yet established.

  IGNORATIO ELENCHI

   The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an
   argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually
   logically nothing to do with that conclusion.

   For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that
   the teachings of Christianity are undoubtably true. If he then argues
   at length that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter
   how well he argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are
   true.

   Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they
   arouse emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion in
   a more favourable light.

  EQUIVOCATION / FALLACY OF FOUR TERMS

   Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different
   meanings in the same argument. For example:

     "What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure
     that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we
     must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely
     redistributable."

  AMPHIBOLY

   Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous
   because of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.

  ACCENT

   Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this
   case, the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement
   are emphasized. For example, consider:

     "We should not speak ill of our friends"

   and

     "We should not speak ill of our friends"

  FALLACIES OF COMPOSITION

   One Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by
   the parts of something must apply to the whole. For example:

     "The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is
     therefore very lightweight."

   The other Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property of a
   number of individual items is shared by a collection of those items.
   For example:

     "A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus.
     Therefore cars are less environmentally damaging than buses."

  FALLACY OF DIVISION

   The fallacy of division is the opposite of the Fallacy of Composition.
   Like its opposite, it exists in two varieties. The first is to assume
   that a property of some thing must apply to its parts. For example:

     "You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."

   The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is
   shared by each item. For example:

     "Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."

  THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT

   This argument states that should one event occur, so will other
   harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are
   caused by the first event.

   For example:

     "If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and
     heroin and we'll have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare.
     Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."

  "A IS BASED ON B" FALLACIES / "...IS A TYPE OF..." FALLACIES / FALLACY OF THE
  UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE

   These fallacies occur when one attempts to argue that things are in
   some way similar without actually specifying in what way they are
   similar. Examples:

     "Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the Bible also a
     form of history?"

     "Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't
     Islam a form of Christianity?"

     "Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a
     form of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of
     cat?"

  AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSEQUENT

   This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true,
   therefore A is true". To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the
   truth table for implication given earlier.

  DENIAL OF THE ANTECEDENT

   This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false,
   therefore B is false". The truth table for implication makes it clear
   why this is a fallacy. Note that this fallacy is different from Non
   Causa Pro Causa. The latter has the form "A implies B, A is false,
   therefore B is false", where A does not in fact imply B at all.
   Here, the problem is not that the implication is invalid; rather it is
   that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce anything about B.

  CONVERTING A CONDITIONAL

   This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B
   then A".

  ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITATEM

   This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good
   simply because it is old, or because "that's the way it's always
   been."

  ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITATEM

   This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it is the
   fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it
   is new or newer than something else.

  ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM

   The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness;
   that those with more money are more likely to be right.

  ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM

   The fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is
   sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier. This fallacy is
   the opposite of the argumentum ad crumenam.

  ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEAM

   This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be
   true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseam" is one
   that employs constant repetition in asserting something.

  BIFURCATION

   Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs
   when one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where
   in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

  PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM / MANY QUESTIONS

   This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a
   complex question.

  NON SEQUITUR

   A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from
   premises which are not logically connected with it.

  RED HERRING

   This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to
   the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted
   away from the points being made, towards a different conclusion.

  REIFICATION / HYPOSTATIZATION

   Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete
   thing.

  SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

   The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or
   proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of
   Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of
   proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made.
   The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true
   unless proven otherwise. For further discussion of this idea, see the
   "Introduction to Atheism" document.

  STRAW MAN

   The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so
   that it can be attacked more easily, then to knock down that
   misrepresented position, then to conclude that the original position
   has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the
   actual arguments that have been made.

  THE EXTENDED ANALOGY

   The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested
   general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that
   mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general
   rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each
   other.

   This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate
   about anti-cryptography legislation:

     "I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."

     "Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have
     supported Martin Luther King."

     "Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the
     struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"

  TU QUOQUE

   This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs when an action is
   argued to be acceptable because the other party has performed it. For
   instance:

     "You're just being randomly abusive."

     "So? You've been abusive too."

   This is a personal attack, and is therefore a special case of
   Argumentum ad Hominem.

  AUDIATUR ET ALTERA PARS

   Often, people will argue from assumptions which they do not bother to
   state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the
   premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It is not
   strictly a fallacy to fail to state all of one's assumptions; however,
   it is often viewed with suspicion.

  AD HOC

   There is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're
   interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the
   statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish
   the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it is an
   explanation.

   The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which does
   not apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be
   dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that
   God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc
   explanation:

     "I was healed from cancer."

     "Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer."

     "So, will He heal others who have cancer?"

     "Er... The ways of God are mysterious."

  ARGUMENTUM AD LOGICAM

   This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false
   merely on the grounds that it has been presented as the conclusion of
   a fallacious argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can
   arrive at true conclusions.

mathew
<[e-mail]>