Matt Slick's Vicious Circle Fallacy

1. From CARM: Following are some statements made by those in relativism.  Find one that fits, copy and paste the reply into a window and see what they say. "All truth is relative" If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative; and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. "There are no absolute truths" The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth; and "There are no absolute truths" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you--including relativism. Matt Slick's Vicious Circle Fallacy

2. Vicious Circle Principle: Principia Mathmatica The Vicious Circle Principle expressed here is entirely based upon: Principia Mathmatica volume 1, pages 37-58 By Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead.

3. The Vicious Circle Principle/Fallacy Consider the following Statements: Do I speak English? I know nothing. All propositions are true or false.

4. Vicious Circle Principle/Fallacy When we consider the first statement: “Do I speak English?” It seems to answer itself. After all, the question is asserted in English. Therefore, it seems that the answer is given by the very act of speaking it.

5. The Imaginary Skeptic Consider the second assertion: “I know nothing.” Clearly we could ask: “Do you not know that you know nothing?” And of course this imaginary skeptic would. And we could conclude that their assertion “I know nothing.” Is false, because they in fact know something. The fact that they know that they know nothing seems refutes the assertion: “I know Nothing”.

6. The Vicious Circle Principle However, these judgments would be premature.

7. The Vicious Circle Principle Consider the classic formulation of the Law of Excluded Middle: “All propositions are true or false.” Does the scope of “All propositions…” include the proposition “All propositions are true or false”? Clearly a designation of “all propositions..” would indeed seem to include “All propositions are true or false.” And we would ask: Is the law of excluded middle true or false? Or always true? If it is always true, it is refuted by the proposition “All propositions are true or false.” And therefore self-refuted.

8. Vicious Circle Principle But as Russell rightly pointed out: “Take for example, the law of excluded middle, in the form “All propositions are true or false.” If from this law we argue that, because the law of excluded middle is a proposition, therefore the law of excluded middle is true or false, we incur a vicious-circle fallacy. “All propositions” must be in some way limited before it becomes a legitimate totality.”

9. Vicious Circle Principle It is indeed proper to include in “All propositions…” the proposition “All propositions are true or false.” This is the vicious circle principle. However, to use the vicious circle principle as a refutation, is committing the vicious circle fallacy.

10. Vicious Circle Fallacy Therefore, when Matt Slick uses the following assertions: If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative; and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.

11. Vicious Circle fallacy And: The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth; and "There are no absolute truths" is false.

12. Vicious Circle Fallacy Matt Slick is using the vicious-circle principle as a refutation. Thus, Matt Slick is committing the vicious-circle fallacy.

13. Vicious Circle Fallacy Similarly, when Matt Slick says: “How can you show the law of non-contradiction is false without referring to the law of non-contradiciton. If you do, it is self-refuting.” He is committing the vicious-circle fallacy again. It is not self refuting. It is only “self refuting” when you employ (to use Russell’s term) “illegitimate totalities”.

14. Vicious Circle Fallacy: The Next Step And now we will take the next step and show that if Matt Slick is indeed legitimate in this usage, his “self-refuting” technique destroys all of his “universal laws of logic”.

15. Vicious Circle Fallacy: CARM “universal laws of logic” Consider the following assertions by Matt Slick, and applying his own “self refutation” technique (which in fact is a fallacy):

16. Vicious Circle Fallacy; CARM “universal laws of logic” The law of identity states that A is A. and     The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false. We ask: “is the ‘Law of identity’ a proposition? And it certainly is. We then ask; So does the “Law of excluded middle” apply to the “Law of Identity”?

17. Vicious Circle Fallacy: CARM “universal laws of logic” We then proceed to ask: ”Can the “Law of identity” be true or false? Or can it only be true? If it can only be true, then the “Law of Identity” cannot be true or false, and is thus, (using the vicious-circle fallacy) refuted by the “Law of Excluded Middle”.

18. Vicious Circle Fallacy: Conclusion We can make the same claim for his “Universal Law of non-contradiction” and his “Law of Excluded middle”. That is, it violates the Law of Excluded Middle (excusing Matt Slick's poor wording of the law). Therefore, they are all refuting each other, or are self refuting.

19. Viciousl Circle Fallacy: Epilog But let us not forget, by using the Vicious Circle principle as a refutation we are committing the Vicious Circle Fallacy. Just as Matt Slick does when he asserts “it is self-refuting”.

20. For more information: • WWW.viciouscircleprinciple.com • WWW.mattslickfallacies.com • WWW.camfallacies.com • WWW.whycarmsucks.com