Thinking About "Thunking"

Fallacies, Mistakes, Misunderstandings, and Lack of Intellectual Charity

I have coined a term which I like to use on occasion with my students. The term is “thunking.” What is the definition of thunking? I am so glad you asked.

Thunking: the outward appearance of thinking, but without the inward reality.

I call my students out (in good fun) for thunking in my classroom. Thunking has different forms. Sometimes it appears as a facial expression that suggests one is deep in thought, but in reality they are merely holding back a sneeze. Sometimes it is an intentional facade such as when students furl their eyebrows and nod as I am speaking, but when you ask them a question they admit that they were not paying attention. Sometimes, though, thunking is an actual attempt to think which simply commits suicide before it can reach maturity.

It is this last kind of thunking which I am writing about today. This post is meant to help you avoid being a deep thunker and, instead, to become a deeper thinker. Learning to think well is the most important thing you can do in the pursuit of education. There is no educational discipline which does not require the skills of clear thinking and, as such, logic undergirds all other disciplines. Not that “Logic” as a discipline is the first thing you learn about, of course, but logic is more than a formal class (though it can be that). Logic is simply the art and science of thinking well. It’s an art because creativity comes into play when forming arguments. It is a science because proper thinking obeys certain rules built into the fabric of the universe which man did not make but has merely discovered. When you learn to speak as a small child, and later start learning to read, you are using principles of logic already even if you don’t know how to articulate what those principles of logic are just yet.

There are different ways in which people have tried to divide the study of Logic (a practice which itself demands the use of logic), but the basic division that most have agreed upon is threefold: Deductive Logic, Inductive Logic, and Material Logic.

Deductive Logic is a form of reasoning in which if the argument is valid (i.e. if the conclusion follows from the premises and if the premises are true) the conclusion is guaranteed to be true. For example:

1. If God exists then man has an obligation to obey his commands.

2. God exists.

3. Therefore men are obligated to obey his commands.

or

1. All human beings are descendents of Adam.

2. All citizens of China are human beings.

3. Therefore, all Citizens of China are descendants of Adam.

Inductive Logic is a form of reasoning in which a valid argument, if the premises are true, leads to a high degree of certainty that the conclusion is also true. For Example:

1. The Universe is rapidly expanding away from a point of origin.

2. All energy is in entropy.

3. There is still usable energy in the universe.

4. It is impossible for an infinite amount of time to have passed prior to the present moment.

5. The universe has the appearance of design.

6. All things which are designed are non-eternal.

7. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

It’s helpful to see that any given premise in an inductive argument could easily be the product (conclusion) of a deductive argument. Further, you can see that these premises don’t have to relate to each other the same way a deductive argument’s premises would need to relate to each other (by means of connecting like terms or the arrangement of the structure of the argument). But all of these premises have one thing in common (whether talking about entropy, time, or design), they all seem to imply the absolute beginning of the universe. Together they make the probability of a static and eternal universe very low and the probability that the universe began very high.

Material Logic differs from the previous two kinds of logic in that it is not concerned so much with whole premises nor their relation to one another and the conclusion but, rather, it is concerned with the content (or material) of statements. For example:

“The brown dog was sitting upon the porch at noon.”

Material logic would examine this statement to understand what all is being communicated by it. For instance, it would note that “brown” is an accidental quality of this particular dog. Dog is a substance because that is its essential nature. “Sitting” refers to the posture of this particular dog, “porch” refers to its location and “noon” refers to the time in which the dog is exhibiting that posture in that place.

In other words, Material logic examines the content of statements and considers what all is really being communicated in a particular statement. You’d be surprised how many things we say without knowing what we are actually communicating. Material logic is largely concerned with things like Aristotle’s Ten Categories.

Of course these examples are only scratching the surface of Inductive, Deductive, and Material Logic, but it gives you an idea.

Now let’s turn back to thinking about “thunking” or what may be more properly (certainly more commonly) called “fallacies of thought.” Roughly these can be divided into three categories: Formal Fallacies on one side and Informal and Material Fallacies on the other side.

Categorical Syllogistic Formal Fallacies

Formal Fallacies are concerned primarily with Deductive Logic in which the structure (or form) of the argument is a major factor in drawing a true conclusion. Here is an example of a sound categorical syllogism (there are other non-syllogistic deductive arguments):

1. All human beings are descendents of Adam.

2. All citizens of China are human beings.

3. Therefore, all Citizens of China are descendants of Adam.

The above argument is an AAA-1 syllogism and is there valid in structure. The premises are true and the conclusion is therefore necessarily true, therefore the argument is said to be sound.

The following argument however…

1. All citizens of China are human beings.

2. All descendents of Adam are human beings.

3. Therefore, all descendants of Adam are Citizens of China.

…has some problems structurally (namely, the fallacy of the undistributed middle term). The latter argument is fallacious because of the way it is structured or formed and therefore it brought us a false conclusion even though both of its premises were true. Fallacies occur in categorical syllogisms when one or more of the following rules is violated:

1. A syllogism cannot have two negative premises.

2. A syllogism cannot have a negative premise and an affirmative conclusion.

3. A syllogism cannot have two affirmative premises and a negative conclusion.

4. The middle term of a syllogism must be distributed in at least one of the premises.

5. If a term is distributed in the conclusion it must also be distributed in the premise.

To explain all the ins and outs of the proper way to construct the various kinds of syllogisms (categorical, hypothetical, mixed-hypothetical, disjunctive, etc.) would take us well beyond my intentions for this post, but suffice it to say that some thunking is just a matter of failing to pay attention to formal rules of forming arguments which leads us to silly places.

Non-Syllogistic Formal Fallacies

Some thunking is still about the structure of the Deductive argument, but not all deductive arguments are syllogistic. Syllogisms are always two premises and one conclusion. Many deductive arguments are longer (some much longer) than this, but they still have to obey certain rules. Here are just a few mistakes people make in other kinds of deductive arguments.

1. Circular Reasoning: This fallacy occurs when someone’s premise and conclusion are mutually dependent upon one another.

   1. Example: “We know how old a fossil is because of which sedentary layer it is found in. We know how old a sedentary layer is because of what kind of fossils it contains.”

   2. Refutation: It it’s not possible to simultaneously prove your premise and your conclusion when the truth of each is dependent upon the truth of the other.

2. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: This phrase is Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.” This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because something happened after something else, the former is the cause of the latter.

   1. Example: “The man came out of the building as I was coming in and then I found the dead body. He must have been the murderer.”

   2. Example: “The rooster crowed and then the sun rose, therefore the rooster’s crow caused the sun to rise.”

   3. Refutation: The fact that something occurs after something else does not establish a cause and effect relationship without further corroborating evidence.

3. False Dilemma: This fallacy occurs when someone tries to force an opponent into picking between only one of two possibilities when, in reality, there is at least a third possibility or more.

   1. Example: “All people are either Muslims or Atheists. Which one are you?”

   2. Refutation: “If I get an A on this paper my friends will think I am a nerd, but if I get an F my parents will ground me, either way I am in for a bad week.”

   3. Refutation: Actually, I am a Christian. Actually you could get a C and be perfectly mediocre. There are more options than given in either of these examples.

There are plenty of other deductive fallacies, but these are some very common ways people thunk instead of think.

Informal Fallacies and Material Fallacies are different from formal fallacies in that they are mistakes in thinking that have to do with a person either failing to express themselves well or where someone deals with something that has been said in an un-careful way. Sometimes these fallacies are a result of misinterpreting or mistreating a person’s claims (whether intentionally or unintentionally). There is no perfect list of these fallacies, and some of them go by multiple names, but here is a starter kit for spotting egregious acts of thunking out in the wild.

Informal fallacies are simply cases of non-sequitur, in other words they are situations where we can say, “Actually, that conclusion does not follow from the available information or premises.”

1. Ad Populum: Latin for “to the masses.” This is simply the claim that something should or shouldn’t be done, or believed, because of what the majority are doing or believing. The foolishness of this common fallacy is easily demonstrated.

   1. Example: “The majority of people are in favor of abortion, therefore abortion should be legal.”

   2. Example: “The majority of people are in favor of child trafficking, so child trafficking should be legal.”

   3. Refutation: Counting noses as to the number of people who believe something is true is not determinative of what actually is true. If you’ve ever approved of any kind of reform (political, social, religious, education) then you have to believe that sometimes the majority of people are wrong and need to be corrected.

2. Rhodes Scholar / Ipse Dixit: This fallacy is an appeal to an authority as absolute (particularly when outside of their are of expertise). The latter Latin phrase means “He said it himself.”

   1. Example: “Bart Ehrman has a Ph.D. in New Testament history and he said that the Bible is unreliable, so the Bible is unreliable.”

   2. Example: “Taylor Swift said we should vote for Kamala Harris, so that’s what I am doing and you should too!”

   3. Refutation: While expert testimony can and should be a meaningful part of investigating truth claims, no one expert in a field should be allowed to be the definitive expert whose perspective is law. There are also many Ph.D.’s in the New Testament history who would directly contradict Dr. Ehrman’s claims. Taylor Swift, as a singer/musician, is even less qualified to address political issues as a recognized authority, but even if she was she would also not be beyond question.

3. Ad Baculum: this is a Latin phrase which literally means “to the stick” and it is an appeal to force or threat of harm.

   1. Example: “I am the best candidate for president and you should vote for me because if the other guy gets in he will bankrupt the country.”

   2. Refutation: Not only is this another example of a false dilemma, but also this argument also doesn’t provide good reasons for why the person in question is the best candidate, it simply threatens that harm will come if people don’t vote for him. Even if it’s true that harm may come from the other candidate, it does not establish the claim that the person in question is the better candidate.

4. Ad Hominem: this Latin phrase translates “to the man” and it is the fallacy of attacking someone’s character rather than their argument.

   1. Example: “Jonathan has told us a lot tonight about how harmful no-fault divorce is, but I know for fact that he has never been married and therefore knows nothing about marriage.

   2. Refutation: Jonathan may, in fact, be ignorant about marriage and how hard it is, but this attack on his own person and situation does nothing to establish that no-fault divorce is not harmful. This example attacks the person making the claim and does not address the argument or claim itself.

5. Genetic / Bulverism: this fallacy writes off someone’s argument as invalid by trying to explain how, when, or why they came to believe what they do.

   1. Example: “Of course you think Jesus is God, you grew up in a conservative Baptist family.”

   2. Refutation: The fact that a person believes something as a result of their parentage does not make that belief false. One can point out the many people who have grown up in other religions and philosophies who have become Christians despite what they were raised to believe. Further, the explanation of the origin of a belief or conviction is simply not a refutation. If an atheist is an atheist because he was abused by his religious grandfather that doesn’t mean atheism is false anymore than the example meant Christianity was false. We have to address the arguments, not the origins of why, where, or when someone came to think that way.

6. Tu Quoque: this Latin phrase means “You also!” It’s a way of calling out someone’s hypocrisy, but it fails to invalidate an argument.

   1. Example: “David says that Gambling is bad and we ought not to do it, but I just found a lotto ticket in his wallet!”

   2. Refutation: People may act hypocritically, but this doesn’t address whether or not their claim is true or false. Many a father has tried to tell his child that smoking is bad for his health while continuing to smoke two packs a day himself. The fact that he doesn’t listen to his own argument doesn’t make the conclusion of his argument false (smoking cigarettes is, in fact, bad for you).

7. Ad Ignorantiam: this Latin phrase means “to ignorance” and it refers to the fallacy of appealing to a lack of information as evidence for a positive claim.

   1. Example: “There is no evidence that this man did not murder the that woman, so he must be guilty.”

   2. Example: “No one has ever proven that there are no ghosts, so there must be ghosts!”

   3. Refutation: The absence of information simply cannot positively prove anything. From nothing comes nothing.

8. Chronological Snobbery: this fallacy assumes either that something is good or bad simply because it is old or new.

   1. Example: “Our church has used these hymnals for more than 60 years, they have to be better than those hymnals that came out last year.”

   2. Example: “The new iPhone 347 comes out next Tuesday, it’s going to be the best one yet because it has a brand new operating software.”

   3. Refutation: Nothing about something being newer or older makes it good or bad per se. In any given instance a thing must be judged for its own qualities and merits rather than just assuming it being new or tried and true makes it obviously better. Perhaps that old hymnal has a few songs which are unorthodox but the new one is more faithful. Perhaps the new iPhone’ software will have a bug that makes it slower than the previous iPhone.

9. Hasty Generalization: this fallacy does exactly what it sounds like, it jumps to a grand conclusion based upon a small sample of information.

   1. Example: “Becky broke up with me right at Christmastime. Women are the worst!”

   2. Example: “I’ve had two Ford pickups and I’ve loved them. Fords never break down!”

   3. Refutation: You cannot legitimately take a particular instance of something and apply it universally to all things of that same sort. Becky might be the worst (maybe), but that doesn’t mean all women are terrible. Your Fords may never have broken down, but that really doesn’t prove that no Ford ever would.

10. Slippery Slope: This fallacy assumes that a certain decision, action, or belief will necessarily lead to a series of other decisions, actions, or beliefs that are undesirable.

    1. Example: “If you don’t do your homework then you will get bad grades. If you get bad grades you won’t be able to go to college, if you don’t go to college you will not make very much money, if you don’t make very much money you’ll be forced to steal, if you are forced to steal you will go to jail and rot there forever!”

    2. Refutation: Although this might be true for someone, there are many points along the way at which someone might depart from this slippery slope and not descend all the way down it. For instance, one might get a bad grade and not go to college but start a successful welding business and make more than many people with higher education. One might also be allowed into college later in life under probation once they start taking education more seriously, etc.

Material fallacies are those which have to do with misunderstandings of the content of a statement or set of statements. This misunderstanding can be the fault of the speaker/writer or the hearer/reader.

1. Equivocation: This fallacy results when the same term is used more than once in an argument or discussion but with two different definitions.

   1. Example: “Let’s throw a ball!” said Mary. “Great idea, I love playing catch!” said Steve.

   2. Refutation: Mary is defining “a ball” as a formal dance. Steve is defining “a ball” as a physical object which can be tossed back and forth between two people. The word is the same in sound and appearance, but these are two different terms.

2. Amphibole: This fallacy results from emphasizing different parts of a statement which can completely change the intended meaning.

   1. Example: “You should not steal from your neighbor.”

      1. “You should not steal from your neighbor,” but it’s fine if I do it.

      2. “You should not steal from your neighbor,” but we are totally going to.

      3. “You should not steal from your neighbor,” but he won’t mind if we borrow it for a while without asking.

      4. “You should not steal from your neighbor,” but it’s fine if it’s mine.

      5. “You should not steal from your neighbor,” but people in the next town are fair game.

   2. Refutation: Clearly, in all of these various emphases, this was not the intent of the original statement. Attempting to emphasize one part of a statement in order to find a loophole in the intent of the author is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

3. Composition: This fallacy assumes what is true of one part of something must be true of the whole.

   1. Example: “Sam is a good man, his family must all be great people”

   2. Example: “A snowflake is very light, therefore snow cannot ever be heavy.”

   3. Refutation: Sam might be a great guy, but sometimes good men come from wicked families (and vice versa). Obviously a snowflake is light, but accumulate enough of them to have an avalanche and you’ll find a different experience.

4. Division: This fallacy assumes what is true of the whole must be true of all of the parts.

   1. Example: “The Shawnee-Mission High School team won the basketball championship this year! Every player on that team must be amazing.”

   2. Example: “Elephants are incredibly heavy, the hairs on their head must be very heavy too.”

   3. Refutation: Even good teams have bench warmers for a reason. The accumulative weight of an elephant does not mean every part of the elephant is of equal density.

5. Complex Question: This fallacy comes from the uncharitable formation of a question.

   1. Example: A lawyer asked the man on the stand, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The man replies, “Yes! I mean, wait, No! I mean…wait!”

   2. Refutation: If one says “Yes” then they are admitting to having beat their wife. If one says “No” then they are admitting to still beating their wife. The question is designed to imply guilt either way the person answers.

As I said above, there are many many fallacies out there and some of those listed here go by other names or have variant forms. Fallacies invariably either come from breaking formal procedures in logic, from misunderstanding the content of statements, from exercising a lack of charity towards another person’s statement, or from just utter confusion (Thunking) on the part of all involved. We are all susceptible to mistakes, of course, but we can do our best to learn about common errors of thought so as to avoid them in our own arguments and conversations and to spot them in others.

Love Studying Great Books? Consider becoming a Paid Subscriber and gaining access to a growing library of Study Guides and other curriculum for pursuing a Christian Liberal Arts Education. Check out our Directory of Resources to learn more about what STGB has to offer. Perfect for those seeking to improve their own education, teach in a classical school, homeschool their kids, or lead book clubs with friends! Now through Friday, December 6 you can secure 20% off for life on your paid subscription. The discount will never end and the resources will just keep growing!