◉

The Steppingstone Fallacy

  • The Steppingstone Fallacy occurs when an individual selectively adopts specific positions or arguments from various authorities, each of whom they generally disagree with, to create a chain of support for their own argument.
  • The ultimate goal is to bolster their own argument by presenting it as supported by multiple reputable sources, despite those sources being fundamentally misaligned.
  • By emphasizing the biological effects of the raw components, the person creates an illusion that these effects are present in homeopathic treatments, ignoring the fact that the extreme dilution in homeopathy renders these effects negligible.
  • Misrepresents the views of the authorities cited, leading to a distorted understanding of their positions.
  • Creates a false sense of credibility and support for the individual’s argument by piecing together selectively chosen points.
  • Insist on understanding the full context of the authorities’ positions, not just the selectively chosen points.

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Provide a clear example of the process behind the logical fallacy described below:
    1. The Steppingstone Fallacy
      1. The Steppingstone Fallacy
        1. Step 1: Selective Agreement with a Medical Historian
        2. Step 2: Selective Agreement with a Biochemist
        3. Step 3: Selective Agreement with a Celebrity Endorsement
        4. In this Chain:
      2. Impact of the Steppingstone Fallacy
      3. Countering the Steppingstone Fallacy
      4. The Steppingstone Fallacy: Building a House of Cards
  2. The Steppingstone Fallacy is often used by theists who cite the cherry-picked opinions of non-theist, often framing the agreement as “Even X, who is not a God-believer, admits this.” Provide an authentic example of this.
    1. Example of The Steppingstone Fallacy in Theistic Arguments
      1. Step 1: Selective Agreement with a Renowned Physicist
      2. Step 2: Selective Agreement with an Atheist Philosopher
      3. Step 3: Selective Agreement with a Prominent Atheist
      4. In this Chain:
    2. Impact of the Steppingstone Fallacy
    3. Countering the Steppingstone Fallacy
    4. The Steppingstone Fallacy: A Slippery Slope to Misrepresentation in Theistic Arguments
  3. Provide a clear way a steppingstone fallacy can be exposed and dismissed.
    1. Exposing and Dismissing the Steppingstone Fallacy
      1. 1. Identify the Authorities Cited
      2. 2. Contextualize Each Authority’s Full Position
      3. 3. Highlight the Selective Agreement
      4. 4. Demonstrate the Inconsistency
      5. 5. Reassert the Ignored Context
    2. Example: Exposing the Steppingstone Fallacy in a Theistic Argument
      1. Step 1: Identify the Authorities Cited
      2. Step 2: Contextualize Each Authority’s Full Position
      3. Step 3: Highlight the Selective Agreement
      4. Step 4: Demonstrate the Inconsistency
      5. Step 5: Reassert the Ignored Context
    3. Conclusion
    4. Exposing and Dismantling the Steppingstone Fallacy: A Toolkit for Clear Thinking
  4. Quizzes
  5. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Discussion Questions
    2. Steppingstone Fallacy: Examining the Cracks in the Argument

Provide a clear example of the process behind the logical fallacy described below:

The Steppingstone Fallacy

Definition:

The Steppingstone Fallacy occurs when an individual selectively adopts specific positions or arguments from various authorities, each of whom they generally disagree with, to create a chain of support for their own argument. This process involves cherry-picking agreeable points from a series of sources, none of which they consistently agree with, to lend credibility to their position.

Characteristics:

  1. Selective Agreement: The individual agrees with only certain points from each authority while disregarding the broader context or overall views of those authorities.
  2. Chain of Support: The person constructs a chain of arguments by linking these selectively chosen points, creating an illusion of comprehensive support.
  3. Inconsistent Sources: The authorities cited may have conflicting views, but the individual selectively aligns with them based on convenience rather than coherence.
  4. Bolstering Position: The ultimate goal is to bolster their own argument by presenting it as supported by multiple reputable sources, despite those sources being fundamentally misaligned.

Example:

Imagine a person arguing that climate change is not a significant issue. They might first cite a climatologist who acknowledges that current models have limitations (ignoring that the climatologist still believes climate change is a critical concern). Next, they might reference an economist who argues for gradual economic adjustments to environmental policies (ignoring that the economist advocates for proactive measures). Finally, they might cite a politician known for opposing climate policies (ignoring the politician’s lack of scientific expertise).

In this chain:

  • Climatologist: Limited agreement on model limitations, ignoring broader concern.
  • Economist: Agreement on gradual adjustment, ignoring advocacy for proactive measures.
  • Politician: Agreement on opposition to climate policies, ignoring lack of expertise.

The Steppingstone Fallacy

magine a person arguing that a particular alternative medicine treatment, such as homeopathy, is highly effective for treating chronic illnesses. They might construct their argument as follows:

Step 1: Selective Agreement with a Medical Historian
  1. Citing Authority: The person begins by citing a medical historian who acknowledges that homeopathy has been popular for centuries.
  2. Ignoring Context: They focus solely on the historian’s point about homeopathy’s historical popularity and disregard the historian’s broader argument, which emphasizes the importance of scientific advancements and evidence-based medicine.
  3. Creating Illusion: By highlighting the historical popularity, the person creates an illusion that long-standing use equates to efficacy, despite the historian’s actual stance that modern medicine is based on scientific validation.
Step 2: Selective Agreement with a Biochemist
  1. Citing Authority: Next, the person references a biochemist who mentions that some components used in homeopathic remedies are derived from naturally occurring substances that have biological effects.
  2. Ignoring Context: They conveniently overlook the biochemist’s assertion that these substances are usually diluted to the point of being ineffective in homeopathy.
  3. Creating Illusion: By emphasizing the biological effects of the raw components, the person creates an illusion that these effects are present in homeopathic treatments, ignoring the fact that the extreme dilution in homeopathy renders these effects negligible.
Step 3: Selective Agreement with a Celebrity Endorsement
  1. Citing Authority: Finally, the person cites a celebrity known for promoting alternative health practices.
  2. Ignoring Context: They disregard the fact that the celebrity lacks medical expertise and often endorses other unproven treatments.
  3. Creating Illusion: By leveraging the celebrity’s endorsement, the person appeals to the celebrity’s influence and popularity, creating an illusion of credibility and widespread acceptance without addressing the lack of scientific backing.
In this Chain:
  1. Medical Historian:
    • Agreement: Historical popularity.
    • Ignored Context: Emphasis on scientific advancements and evidence-based medicine.
  2. Biochemist:
    • Agreement: Biological effects of components.
    • Ignored Context: Critique of homeopathic dilution rendering the effects negligible.
  3. Celebrity Endorsement:
    • Agreement: Promotion of alternative health practices.
    • Ignored Context: Lack of medical expertise and endorsement of unproven treatments.

Impact of the Steppingstone Fallacy

  1. Misrepresentation: Misrepresents the views of the authorities cited, leading to a distorted understanding of their positions.
  2. False Credibility: Creates a false sense of credibility and support for the individual’s argument by piecing together selectively chosen points.
  3. Confusion: Can confuse the audience by presenting a seemingly well-supported argument that lacks internal coherence and consistency.

Countering the Steppingstone Fallacy

  1. Demand Context: Insist on understanding the full context of the authorities’ positions, not just the selectively chosen points.
  2. Check Consistency: Evaluate whether the sources cited have internally consistent views and whether they genuinely support the overall argument being made.
  3. Identify Cherry-Picking: Be aware of cherry-picking tactics and point out when only selective agreement is used to bolster an argument.

By recognizing and addressing the Steppingstone Fallacy, one can better evaluate the validity of arguments and ensure that support is genuinely representative of the authorities’ views.

The Steppingstone Fallacy: Building a House of Cards

The Steppingstone Fallacy is a deceptive tactic used to create the illusion of strong support for an argument. It involves cherry-picking agreeable points from various sources, often with conflicting viewpoints, and piecing them together to build a seemingly credible foundation. This “fallacy” in logic is akin to constructing a house of cards – impressive at first glance but ultimately unstable and prone to collapse under scrutiny.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of the process behind the Steppingstone Fallacy:

1. Selective Agreement: Mining for Gold Nuggets (or Fool’s Gold?)

The first step involves identifying authorities on a particular topic. However, the fallacious actor doesn’t engage with their entire body of work. Instead, they act like a miner sifting through piles of arguments, searching only for nuggets that align with their pre-determined position. These nuggets could be:

  • Disagreements with mainstream consensus on minor points.
  • Calls for caution or further research (which are then misconstrued as complete denial).
  • Opinions expressed by figures outside their area of expertise.

2. Chain of Support: Building a Façade of Strength

Once these agreeable points are identified, the fallacious actor connects them like stepping stones, creating a misleading impression of a well-supported argument. This chain building involves:

  • Ignoring the broader context of the chosen quotes. For example, a scientist acknowledging the limitations of a specific climate model might still believe in the overwhelming evidence for climate change. This crucial context is conveniently omitted.
  • Failing to acknowledge the core arguments of the cited authorities. An economist advocating for a gradual transition to renewable energy might have a quote cherry-picked that emphasizes the need for economic considerations, completely ignoring their support for proactive environmental measures.

3. Inconsistent Sources: Strange Bedfellows on the Stepping Stones

The sources used in the Steppingstone Fallacy often have fundamentally different viewpoints. The fallacious actor doesn’t care about these inconsistencies as long as they can extract a single point that seemingly supports their argument. This can lead to the bizarre spectacle of:

  • A climate change denier citing a climatologist who emphasizes the need for further research while ignoring the scientist’s overall conclusion that climate change is real and poses a serious threat.
  • An anti-vaccination advocate quoting a medical study on rare vaccine side effects, completely disregarding the study’s overall conclusion that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.

4. Bolstering Position: A House Built on Sand

The ultimate goal of the Steppingstone Fallacy is to create the illusion that a shaky argument is supported by multiple reputable sources. By stringing together these selectively chosen points, the fallacious actor attempts to:

  • Lend credibility to their position by association with established authorities.
  • Give the impression of a well-rounded and balanced perspective, even though the underlying sources might be fundamentally opposed to each other.
  • Confuse the audience with a seemingly comprehensive argument, making it harder to identify the fallacy.

Impact: A House of Cards Crumbles

The Steppingstone Fallacy can have a significant negative impact on a healthy discussion:

  • Misrepresentation: It misrepresents the views of the cited authorities, distorting their actual positions and potentially damaging their reputations.
  • False Credibility: It creates a false sense of credibility for the fallacious argument, making it appear more convincing than it actually is.
  • Confusion: The audience might be misled by the seemingly well-supported argument, leading to confusion and difficulty discerning truth from manipulation.

Countering the Steppingstone Fallacy: Building a Solid Foundation

Fortunately, there are ways to identify and counter the Steppingstone Fallacy:

  • Demand Context: Ask for the full context of the quotes used. What was the source saying overall? Does the chosen excerpt accurately reflect their position?
  • Check Consistency: Evaluate whether the cited sources have internally consistent views and if they genuinely support the overall argument being made. Do their broader arguments contradict the cherry-picked points?
  • Identify Cherry-Picking: Be aware of the tactic and point out when only selective agreement is used to bolster an argument.

By recognizing and addressing the Steppingstone Fallacy, we can ensure that arguments are evaluated based on their own merit, not on the illusion of support created by manipulative tactics. Remember, a strong foundation for an argument requires a careful examination of all the evidence, not just convenient fragments that fit a pre-determined narrative.

Thank you for providing this detailed explanation of the Steppingstone Fallacy. I’ll create a clear example to illustrate how this logical fallacy might play out in a real-world scenario.

Example: The Steppingstone Fallacy in Action

Context: A local politician, Sarah, is arguing against implementing a new public transportation system in her city. She uses the Steppingstone Fallacy to build her case.

Sarah’s Argument:

“We shouldn’t invest in this new public transportation system. Let me explain why:

  1. Dr. Johnson, a renowned urban planner, points out that large-scale transportation projects often face unexpected delays and cost overruns.
  2. Professor Lee, an environmental scientist, has stated that the production of electric batteries for vehicles can have negative environmental impacts.
  3. Mayor Thompson from a neighboring city emphasizes the importance of fiscal responsibility in city planning.
  4. Finally, Mr. Davis, a local business owner, expresses concerns about how construction might disrupt local businesses.

Given these expert opinions, it’s clear that this public transportation project is a bad idea for our city.”

Analysis of the Steppingstone Fallacy in Sarah’s Argument:

  1. Selective Agreement:
  • Sarah cherry-picks specific points from each source while ignoring their overall stance on public transportation.
  1. Chain of Support:
  • She creates a chain of seemingly supportive arguments by linking these selectively chosen points.
  1. Inconsistent Sources:
  • The sources likely have conflicting views on public transportation, but Sarah aligns with them based on convenience.
  1. Bolstering Position:
  • Sarah uses these selectively chosen points to bolster her argument against the transportation system.

The Reality Behind Sarah’s Sources:

  • Dr. Johnson: While acknowledging potential challenges, he actually supports public transportation as a solution to urban congestion and environmental issues.
  • Professor Lee: Despite concerns about battery production, he advocates for electric public transportation as a net positive for the environment.
  • Mayor Thompson: While emphasizing fiscal responsibility, he has successfully implemented public transportation in his own city and sees it as a wise long-term investment.
  • Mr. Davis: Although worried about short-term disruptions, he believes improved public transportation will ultimately boost local businesses by increasing foot traffic.

Impact of Sarah’s Use of the Steppingstone Fallacy:

  1. Misrepresentation: Sarah misrepresents the overall views of her cited sources.
  2. False Credibility: She creates a false sense of expert support for her position.
  3. Confusion: Audiences might be misled by the seemingly well-supported argument.

To counter Sarah’s use of the Steppingstone Fallacy, one would need to investigate the full context of each source’s position and point out the selective nature of her citations. This would reveal that her argument lacks genuine support from the authorities she cites.

The Steppingstone Fallacy is often used by theists who cite the cherry-picked opinions of non-theist, often framing the agreement as “Even X, who is not a God-believer, admits this.” Provide an authentic example of this.

Example of The Steppingstone Fallacy in Theistic Arguments

The Steppingstone Fallacy is often employed by theists who selectively cite the opinions of non-theists to support their arguments for the existence of God or the validity of religious beliefs. They frame these cherry-picked agreements in a way that suggests even non-believers concede key points, thereby bolstering their own position.

Step 1: Selective Agreement with a Renowned Physicist
  1. Citing Authority: The person begins by citing Albert Einstein, a renowned physicist, who once said, “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”
  2. Ignoring Context: They focus solely on this quote and ignore Einstein’s broader views, where he clarified that he did not believe in a personal God and often referred to his belief in “God” as a metaphor for the order and harmony of the universe.
  3. Creating Illusion: By emphasizing this quote, the person creates an illusion that Einstein, a respected scientist, supported theistic beliefs, ignoring his actual stance on religion and personal deity.
Step 2: Selective Agreement with an Atheist Philosopher
  1. Citing Authority: Next, the person references Thomas Nagel, an atheist philosopher, who acknowledges that certain features of the universe, like consciousness, pose significant challenges to a purely materialistic view of the world.
  2. Ignoring Context: They conveniently overlook Nagel’s broader argument where he remains critical of theistic explanations and proposes alternative, non-theistic accounts for these phenomena.
  3. Creating Illusion: By highlighting Nagel’s acknowledgment of the challenges to materialism, the person creates an illusion that even prominent atheists recognize the inadequacy of non-theistic worldviews, ignoring Nagel’s commitment to finding non-theistic explanations.
Step 3: Selective Agreement with a Prominent Atheist
  1. Citing Authority: Finally, the person cites Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist, who has said, “It is possible to construct a logically coherent universe without invoking God.”
  2. Ignoring Context: They ignore Dawkins’ consistent and extensive arguments against the existence of God, focusing instead on this statement as an unintended concession.
  3. Creating Illusion: By leveraging this statement, the person creates an illusion that Dawkins acknowledges the possibility of a universe where God exists, ignoring his overall arguments against theistic claims.
In this Chain:
  1. Albert Einstein:
    • Agreement: “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”
    • Ignored Context: Einstein’s clarification that his “God” was a metaphor for the order of the universe, not a personal deity.
  2. Thomas Nagel:
    • Agreement: Acknowledgment of challenges to materialism.
    • Ignored Context: Nagel’s commitment to non-theistic explanations.
  3. Richard Dawkins:
    • Agreement: Possibility of constructing a coherent universe without invoking God.
    • Ignored Context: Dawkins’ extensive arguments against the existence of God.

Impact of the Steppingstone Fallacy

  1. Misrepresentation: Misrepresents the views of the authorities cited, leading to a distorted understanding of their positions.
  2. False Credibility: Creates a false sense of credibility and support for the individual’s argument by piecing together selectively chosen points.
  3. Confusion: Can confuse the audience by presenting a seemingly well-supported argument that lacks internal coherence and consistency.

Countering the Steppingstone Fallacy

  1. Demand Context: Insist on understanding the full context of the authorities’ positions, not just the selectively chosen points.
  2. Check Consistency: Evaluate whether the sources cited have internally consistent views and whether they genuinely support the overall argument being made.
  3. Identify Cherry-Picking: Be aware of cherry-picking tactics and point out when only selective agreement is used to bolster an argument.

By recognizing and addressing the Steppingstone Fallacy, one can better evaluate the validity of arguments and ensure that support is genuinely representative of the authorities’ views.

The Steppingstone Fallacy: A Slippery Slope to Misrepresentation in Theistic Arguments

The Steppingstone Fallacy is a deceptive tactic that can infiltrate many arguments, but it finds a particularly fertile ground in discussions about the existence of God. Theists who want to bolster their case for a divine being sometimes resort to cherry-picking the opinions of non-theists, framing the agreement as “Even X, who is not a God-believer, admits this.” This tactic creates the illusion of a broader consensus for theistic views, but upon closer examination, crumbles like a house of cards built on sand.

Let’s delve deeper into how the Steppingstone Fallacy manifests in the context of the God debate and explore strategies to dismantle its deceptive nature.

The Slippery Slope of Selective Agreement

The first step in the Steppingstone Fallacy involves identifying authorities on the topic, in this case, prominent non-theistic thinkers. However, the fallacious actor doesn’t engage with their entire body of work. Instead, they act like a miner sifting through piles of arguments, searching only for nuggets that align with their pre-determined position – the existence of God. These nuggets could be:

  • Disagreements with mainstream atheist arguments on minor points. For example, an atheist philosopher might argue against the argument from design but acknowledge the complexity of the universe. This nuanced position is then misconstrued as a tacit admission of the need for a creator.
  • Calls for further exploration of consciousness or morality. Some non-theistic thinkers might acknowledge the limitations of purely materialistic explanations for consciousness or the existence of objective morality. The fallacious actor then twists this open-mindedness into an implicit acceptance of a God-given explanation.
  • Opinions expressed by figures outside their area of expertise. A renowned scientist might express a sense of awe at the universe’s vastness. This is then misrepresented as evidence for a belief in a higher power, ignoring the scientist’s focus on the natural world and its mechanisms.

Building a Façade of Strength: The Chain of Misrepresentation

Once these agreeable points are identified, the fallacious actor connects them like stepping stones, creating a misleading impression of a well-supported argument for the existence of God. This chain building involves:

  • Ignoring the broader context of the chosen quotes. For example, a scientist acknowledging the limitations of current theories on consciousness might still believe in a purely materialistic explanation. This crucial context – the scientist’s overall commitment to natural explanations – is conveniently omitted.
  • Failing to acknowledge the core arguments of the cited authorities. An atheist philosopher advocating for a focus on human well-being and social justice might have a quote cherry-picked that emphasizes the importance of meaning and purpose in life. This is then misconstrued as a yearning for a divine source of meaning, completely ignoring the philosopher’s emphasis on building a meaningful life within a secular framework.

Strange Bedfellows on the Stepping Stones: Inconsistency Breeds Deception

The sources used in the Steppingstone Fallacy often have fundamentally different viewpoints on the existence of God. The fallacious actor doesn’t care about these inconsistencies as long as they can extract a single point that seemingly supports their argument. This can lead to the bizarre spectacle of:

  • A creationist citing a physicist who emphasizes the fine-tuning of the universe for life, while ignoring the physicist’s commitment to the theory of evolution and the vastness of the cosmos, suggesting the possibility of life arising elsewhere.
  • An advocate for intelligent design quoting a biologist who acknowledges the irreducibility of some biological systems, completely disregarding the biologist’s adherence to the process of natural selection as the driving force behind complex adaptations.

Bolstering a Shaky Foundation: The Illusion of Credibility

The ultimate goal of the Steppingstone Fallacy is to create the illusion that a shaky argument for the existence of God is supported by multiple reputable sources. By stringing together these selectively chosen points, the fallacious actor attempts to:

  • Lend credibility to their position by association with established authorities in seemingly unrelated fields.
  • Give the impression of a well-rounded and balanced perspective, even though the underlying sources might be fundamentally opposed to the idea of a God. The seemingly neutral stance can disarm the audience and make them less critical of the underlying assumptions.
  • Confuse the audience with a seemingly comprehensive argument, making it harder to identify the fallacy and the lack of genuine support for the claim of a divine being.

The Crumbling House of Cards: The Impact of Misrepresentation

The Steppingstone Fallacy can have a significant negative impact on a healthy discussion about the existence of God:

  • Misrepresentation: It misrepresents the views of the cited authorities, distorting their actual positions and potentially damaging their reputations. This can create confusion about the actual arguments being made by non-theistic thinkers and make it harder to have a genuine exchange of ideas.
  • False Credibility:

You’re absolutely right. The Steppingstone Fallacy is indeed often employed in theological debates, particularly by theists who selectively cite non-theist sources to bolster their arguments. Here’s an authentic example of how this might play out:

Example: A Theist’s Argument Using the Steppingstone Fallacy

Context: A Christian apologist, John, is arguing for the historical accuracy of the Bible and the existence of God in a debate.

John’s Argument:

“The evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible and the existence of God is overwhelming. Let me show you why:

  1. Dr. Sarah Thompson, a renowned archaeologist, has stated that many locations mentioned in the Bible have been confirmed through archaeological findings.
  2. Professor Michael Chen, a cosmologist, admits that the fine-tuning of universal constants is a perplexing issue in physics.
  3. Dr. Emily Rodriguez, a neuroscientist, acknowledges that science still can’t fully explain consciousness.
  4. Even Richard Dawkins, a famous atheist, concedes that the appearance of design in nature is overwhelming.
  5. Dr. Jordan Peterson, a prominent psychologist, argues that religious narratives have profound psychological significance.

Even these non-Christian experts support key aspects of the Christian worldview. How can we ignore such compelling evidence?”

Analysis of the Steppingstone Fallacy in John’s Argument:

  1. Selective Agreement: John cherry-picks specific statements from each source while ignoring their overall stance on religion and theism.
  2. Chain of Support: He creates a chain of seemingly supportive arguments by linking these selectively chosen points.
  3. Inconsistent Sources: The sources have conflicting views on religion and theism, but John aligns with them based on convenience.
  4. Bolstering Position: John uses these selectively chosen points to bolster his argument for the Bible’s accuracy and God’s existence.

The Reality Behind John’s Sources:

  • Dr. Thompson: While confirming some biblical locations, she doesn’t view this as evidence for the Bible’s overall historical accuracy or divine origin.
  • Professor Chen: He sees the fine-tuning issue as an interesting scientific question, not evidence for a divine creator.
  • Dr. Rodriguez: She’s actively researching consciousness from a materialist perspective and doesn’t see current gaps in knowledge as evidence for the supernatural.
  • Richard Dawkins: His statement about the “appearance of design” is part of his explanation of how natural selection creates this illusion, not an endorsement of actual design.
  • Dr. Peterson: While he sees psychological value in religious narratives, he doesn’t argue for their literal truth or the existence of God.

Impact of John’s Use of the Steppingstone Fallacy:

  1. Misrepresentation: John misrepresents the overall views of his cited sources, none of whom actually support his theistic conclusion.
  2. False Credibility: He creates a false sense of expert support for his position by implying agreement where there is none.
  3. Confusion: Audiences might be misled by the seemingly well-supported argument, especially if they’re unfamiliar with the full views of the cited experts.

To counter John’s use of the Steppingstone Fallacy, one would need to investigate the full context of each source’s position and point out the selective nature of his citations. This would reveal that his argument lacks genuine support from the authorities he cites, and that none of these experts actually endorse his theistic conclusions.

Provide a clear way a steppingstone fallacy can be exposed and dismissed.

Exposing and Dismissing the Steppingstone Fallacy

To effectively expose and dismiss the Steppingstone Fallacy, it’s essential to systematically break down the argument and highlight the inconsistencies and selective agreements. Here’s a step-by-step method to achieve this:

1. Identify the Authorities Cited
  • List all the authorities cited in the argument.
  • Note the specific points or quotes used from each authority.
2. Contextualize Each Authority’s Full Position
  • Research and present the broader context of each authority’s views.
  • Highlight how their overall stance contrasts with the selective point used in the argument.
3. Highlight the Selective Agreement
  • Point out the specific selective agreements made by the individual.
  • Show how these selective points are taken out of context or misrepresent the authority’s full position.
4. Demonstrate the Inconsistency
  • Show how the authorities cited have fundamentally misaligned or conflicting views.
  • Explain why these conflicting views undermine the chain of support constructed by the argument.
5. Reassert the Ignored Context
  • Reassert the parts of the authorities’ arguments that were ignored or dismissed.
  • Emphasize the broader conclusions or recommendations made by the authorities.

Example: Exposing the Steppingstone Fallacy in a Theistic Argument

Argument: A person argues that belief in God is justified by citing Albert Einstein, Thomas Nagel, and Richard Dawkins selectively.

Step 1: Identify the Authorities Cited
  • Albert Einstein: “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”
  • Thomas Nagel: Acknowledgment of challenges to materialism.
  • Richard Dawkins: “It is possible to construct a logically coherent universe without invoking God.”
Step 2: Contextualize Each Authority’s Full Position
  • Albert Einstein: Clarified that his belief in “God” was metaphorical, referring to the order and harmony of the universe, not a personal deity. Einstein was critical of organized religion and did not believe in a personal God.
  • Thomas Nagel: While he criticizes materialism, he remains an atheist and looks for non-theistic explanations for consciousness and other phenomena.
  • Richard Dawkins: Consistently argues against the existence of God, stating that while it’s possible to imagine a universe with a deity, he sees no evidence to support this belief.
Step 3: Highlight the Selective Agreement
  • Einstein: Selective use of a metaphorical statement about God, ignoring his broader atheistic views.
  • Nagel: Focus on his criticism of materialism, ignoring his non-theistic stance.
  • Dawkins: Misinterpretation of a theoretical statement to suggest he acknowledges the possibility of God, ignoring his overall atheism.
Step 4: Demonstrate the Inconsistency
  • Einstein vs. Dawkins: Einstein’s metaphorical use of “God” contrasts sharply with Dawkins’ scientific atheism.
  • Nagel vs. Dawkins: Nagel’s search for non-materialistic explanations still does not align with Dawkins’ outright rejection of theism.
  • Overall Inconsistency: The cited authorities have fundamentally different views, showing the argument lacks coherence.
Step 5: Reassert the Ignored Context
  • Einstein’s Full View: Emphasize Einstein’s rejection of a personal God and organized religion.
  • Nagel’s Full View: Highlight Nagel’s commitment to finding non-theistic explanations despite his criticism of materialism.
  • Dawkins’ Full View: Reiterate Dawkins’ comprehensive arguments against the existence of God and his advocacy for atheism.

Conclusion

By systematically breaking down the argument, contextualizing each authority’s full position, and demonstrating the selective agreement and inconsistencies, one can effectively expose and dismiss the Steppingstone Fallacy. This method ensures that the audience understands the true positions of the cited authorities and sees through the cherry-picking tactics used to construct the fallacious argument.

Exposing and Dismantling the Steppingstone Fallacy: A Toolkit for Clear Thinking

The Steppingstone Fallacy, particularly in the context of the God debate, can be a frustrating tactic to encounter. It relies on misrepresenting the views of non-theistic thinkers to create the illusion of broader support for the existence of God. However, there are clear ways to expose this fallacy and ensure a more productive discussion. Here’s a toolkit to help you dismantle the Steppingstone Fallacy:

1. Demand Context:

  • Don’t accept quotes at face value. Ask for the full context of the quote being used. What was the source saying overall? Was the quote taken from a larger work that addresses the issue in more detail?
  • For example, if someone claims Richard Dawkins admits objective morality exists because of a single quote, ask for the source of the quote and the surrounding arguments. Dawkins might be acknowledging societal morality, not a God-given one.

2. Check Consistency:

  • Don’t be fooled by a seemingly diverse range of sources. Evaluate whether the cited sources have internally consistent views and if they genuinely support the overall argument being made.
  • Research the cited authorities. Does Dawkins spend most of his work arguing against the need for a God to explain morality? Does the scientist who marvels at the universe’s vastness also advocate for intelligent design? If their overall views contradict the single quote used, it’s likely cherry-picking.

3. Identify Cherry-Picking:

  • Be aware of the tactic itself. When someone uses a single quote from a non-theist to bolster their argument for God, recognize it as a potential red flag.
  • Point out the selective agreement. For example, say something like, “Dawkins has written extensively on morality, and this quote seems to be taken out of context. Can we discuss his broader arguments?”

4. Refocus on the Main Arguments:

  • Don’t get bogged down in dissecting every misrepresented quote. Bring the conversation back to the core arguments for and against the existence of God.
  • Ask questions that challenge the underlying assumptions of the Steppingstone Fallacy. For example, if someone uses the complexity of life to argue for God, ask them to explain how that argument interacts with the theory of evolution.

5. Provide Alternative Explanations:

  • Don’t just dismantle the fallacy; offer alternative explanations for the phenomena being cited.
  • If someone uses the existence of objective morality to argue for God, point to the possibility of morality evolving alongside humanity as a social good.

By employing these strategies, you can expose the Steppingstone Fallacy and ensure a more honest and productive discussion about the existence of God. Remember, critical thinking is key. Don’t be afraid to ask questions, demand context, and refocus the conversation on the core arguments at hand. The goal is to have a genuine exchange of ideas, not to be swayed by misleading tactics.

Exposing and dismissing a steppingstone fallacy can be done effectively by following a systematic approach. Here’s a clear method to accomplish this:

Steps to Expose and Dismiss a Steppingstone Fallacy:

  1. Identify the Chain of Arguments
    • Clearly outline the series of points the person is making.
    • Note the sources or authorities they’re citing for each point.
  2. Research the Full Context
    • For each source cited, investigate their complete stance on the topic.
    • Look for the original context of the quoted statements.
  3. Highlight the Discrepancies
    • Point out how the cited views differ from the arguer’s overall conclusion.
    • Emphasize any contradictions between the full views of the sources and how they’re being presented.
  4. Expose the Cherry-Picking
    • Demonstrate how the arguer has selectively chosen points that support their view while ignoring contradictory information from the same sources.
  5. Reconstruct the Argument with Full Context
    • Present a more accurate version of what each cited authority actually believes.
    • Show how this fuller picture does not support the arguer’s conclusion.
  6. Question the Logical Flow
    • Analyze whether the cherry-picked points, even if taken at face value, actually lead to the arguer’s conclusion.
    • Point out any logical leaps or unwarranted assumptions.
  7. Address the Arguer’s Own Position
    • Ask the arguer to clarify their own stance without relying on these selective citations.
    • Encourage them to present direct evidence for their viewpoint rather than relying on misrepresented authorities.

Example Response:

“I appreciate the array of sources you’ve presented, but I’m concerned that they’ve been selectively cited in a way that misrepresents their overall views. Let’s look at each of your points:

  1. Dr. Thompson’s archaeological findings don’t actually support your broader religious claims.
  2. Professor Chen’s comments on fine-tuning are part of ongoing scientific inquiry, not evidence for a deity.
  3. Dr. Rodriguez is actively researching consciousness from a materialist perspective.
  4. Dawkins’ statement about the ‘appearance of design’ is part of his explanation of evolution, not an endorsement of intelligent design.
  5. Dr. Peterson’s views on the psychological significance of religious narratives don’t equate to an argument for their literal truth.

When we consider the full context of each source’s work, we see that none of them actually support your conclusion. Instead of relying on these misrepresented views, could you present direct evidence for your position?”

By following this approach, you effectively expose the fallacy, provide a clearer picture of the evidence, and redirect the conversation to more substantive arguments. This method not only dismisses the fallacious reasoning but also educates others about the importance of context and the dangers of selective citation.

Quizzes

 #1: What is the definition of the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer: The Steppingstone Fallacy occurs when an individual selectively adopts specific positions or arguments from various authorities, each of whom they generally disagree with, to create a chain of support for their own argument. This process involves cherry-picking agreeable points from a series of sources, none of which they consistently agree with, to lend credibility to their position.

 #2: What is the primary goal of someone using the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer: The ultimate goal is to bolster their own argument by presenting it as supported by multiple reputable sources, despite those sources being fundamentally misaligned.

 #3: How does the Steppingstone Fallacy misrepresent the views of authorities?

Answer: It misrepresents the views by cherry-picking specific points of agreement while ignoring the broader context or overall views of those authorities.

 #4: In the example provided, what is overlooked when citing the biochemist’s opinion on homeopathic remedies?

Answer: The biochemist’s assertion that the substances are usually diluted to the point of being ineffective in homeopathy is overlooked.

 #5: Why is citing a celebrity endorsement in the example fallacious?

Answer: It is fallacious because the celebrity lacks medical expertise and often endorses other unproven treatments, which undermines their credibility.

 #6: What should be done to counter the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer: To counter the Steppingstone Fallacy, one should demand context, check consistency, and identify cherry-picking tactics.

 #7: In the theistic argument example, what does the person ignore about Einstein’s view?

Answer: The person ignores that Einstein used “God” as a metaphor for the order and harmony of the universe and did not believe in a personal deity.

 #8: What does the person overlook when citing Thomas Nagel in the theistic argument example?

Answer: They overlook Nagel’s broader argument where he remains critical of theistic explanations and proposes alternative, non-theistic accounts for these phenomena.

 #9: How does citing Richard Dawkins create a false sense of agreement in the theistic argument example?

Answer: By suggesting Dawkins acknowledges the possibility of a universe where God exists, despite his consistent and extensive arguments against the existence of God.

 #10: How can one expose the inconsistency in the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer: One can expose the inconsistency by showing that the authorities cited have fundamentally misaligned or conflicting views, which undermines the chain of support constructed by the argument.

1: What is the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer:

The Steppingstone Fallacy occurs when someone selectively uses parts of arguments from various authorities, often with conflicting views, to create a chain of support for their own position.

2: What are some characteristics of the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer:

The Steppingstone Fallacy involves Selective Agreement (using only agreeable points from sources), Chain of Support (linking these points to create an illusion of comprehensive backing), Inconsistent Sources (using sources with conflicting viewpoints), and Bolstering Position (creating the illusion that the argument has strong support).

3: What is an example of the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer:

Someone arguing against climate change might cite a climatologist who acknowledges limitations in climate models (ignoring their overall concern), an economist advocating for gradual adjustments (ignoring calls for proactive measures), and a politician known for opposing climate policies (ignoring their lack of scientific expertise).

4: What is the impact of the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer:

The Steppingstone Fallacy can Misrepresent the views of cited authorities, create False Credibility for a weak argument, and cause Confusion by presenting a misleadingly well-supported argument.

5: How can you counter the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer:

You can counter the Steppingstone Fallacy by Demanding Context (insisting on understanding the full arguments of the cited sources), Checking Consistency (evaluating if the sources have internally consistent views and truly support the overall argument), and Identifying Cherry-Picking (being aware of the tactic of using only agreeable points from sources).

6: How is the Steppingstone Fallacy often used by theists?

Answer:

Theists sometimes use the Steppingstone Fallacy by citing the cherry-picked opinions of non-theists, framing the agreement as “Even X, who is not a God-believer, admits this,” to create the illusion of broader consensus for theistic views.

7: What is an example of the Steppingstone Fallacy used in a theistic argument?

Answer:

A theist might claim “Even Richard Dawkins admits objective morality exists! This proves God must exist,” while ignoring Dawkins’ likely argument that morality arises from social evolution and empathy, not a divine lawgiver.

 #1: What is the primary characteristic of the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer: The Steppingstone Fallacy involves selectively adopting specific positions or arguments from various authorities, each of whom the arguer generally disagrees with, to create a chain of support for their own argument.

 #2: In the example about the public transportation system, what was Sarah’s ultimate goal in using the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer: Sarah’s goal was to argue against implementing a new public transportation system in her city by creating a false sense of expert support for her position.

 #3: How does the Steppingstone Fallacy typically misrepresent the views of cited authorities?

Answer: The fallacy misrepresents views by cherry-picking specific points from each source while ignoring their overall stance or broader context on the issue.

 #4: In the theist argument example, how did John use Richard Dawkins’ statement in his Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer: John cited Dawkins’ statement about the “appearance of design” in nature, misrepresenting it as support for intelligent design, when Dawkins actually uses this point to explain how natural selection creates an illusion of design.

 #5: What is one effective way to counter the Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer: One effective way is to demand context by insisting on understanding the full context of the authorities’ positions, not just the selectively chosen points.

 #6: How does the Steppingstone Fallacy create a false sense of credibility?

Answer: It creates a false sense of credibility by piecing together selectively chosen points from various authorities, creating an illusion of comprehensive support for the arguer’s position.

 #7: In the method to expose and dismiss a Steppingstone Fallacy, what is the purpose of reconstructing the argument with full context?

Answer: Reconstructing the argument with full context helps to present a more accurate version of what each cited authority actually believes, showing how this fuller picture does not support the arguer’s conclusion.

 #8: How does the Steppingstone Fallacy typically use inconsistent sources?

Answer: The fallacy uses inconsistent sources by citing authorities who may have conflicting views, but selectively aligning with them based on convenience rather than coherence.

 #9: What is the significance of questioning the logical flow when exposing a Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer: Questioning the logical flow helps to analyze whether the cherry-picked points, even if taken at face value, actually lead to the arguer’s conclusion and to point out any logical leaps or unwarranted assumptions.

 #10: Why is it important to address the arguer’s own position when dismantling a Steppingstone Fallacy?

Answer: Addressing the arguer’s own position encourages them to present direct evidence for their viewpoint rather than relying on misrepresented authorities, shifting the focus to more substantive arguments.

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

Discussion Questions

  1. What are the key characteristics that define the Steppingstone Fallacy?
  2. How does selective agreement play a crucial role in the Steppingstone Fallacy?
  3. Can you think of other examples where the Steppingstone Fallacy might be used outside of the contexts given (e.g., in political debates, marketing, etc.)?
  4. Why is it important to consider the full context of an authority’s views rather than just selective points?
  5. How does the Steppingstone Fallacy create a false sense of credibility?
  6. What are the potential dangers or consequences of falling for the Steppingstone Fallacy in public discourse?
  7. How can one effectively demand context when encountering a potential Steppingstone Fallacy?
  8. Why is checking for consistency among sources important in identifying the Steppingstone Fallacy?
  9. What role does cherry-picking play in constructing a Steppingstone Fallacy?
  10. How might the Steppingstone Fallacy confuse an audience, and what can be done to mitigate this confusion?
  11. Discuss a time when you encountered a Steppingstone Fallacy in media or conversation. How did you recognize it?
  12. What are some strategies for educating others about the Steppingstone Fallacy and its impacts?
  13. How can recognizing the Steppingstone Fallacy improve critical thinking and argumentation skills?
  14. In the example of the theistic argument, why is it misleading to cite Einstein, Nagel, and Dawkins in the manner described?
  15. What might be the impact on public understanding if the Steppingstone Fallacy is not recognized and addressed in discussions about science and religion?

Steppingstone Fallacy: Examining the Cracks in the Argument

The Steppingstone Fallacy can be a deceptive tactic used in various contexts. Let’s delve deeper into its application and how to identify it, particularly in discussions about the existence of God.

  1. Beyond Selective Agreement: The Steppingstone Fallacy relies on cherry-picking quotes from authorities. Can you think of examples where a seemingly neutral statement can be misinterpreted when taken out of context?
  2. The Illusion of Support: How does the Steppingstone Fallacy create the appearance of a strong argument when the underlying sources might have conflicting viewpoints?
  3. False Credibility: Why can the Steppingstone Fallacy be particularly dangerous? How can it create a false sense of legitimacy for a weak argument?
  4. Beyond Theism: Can you identify situations outside of religious discussions where the Steppingstone Fallacy might be used? How can you recognize it in these contexts?
  5. Demanding the Full Picture: What does it mean to “demand context” when encountering an argument that might be using the Steppingstone Fallacy?
  6. Checking for Consistency: How can you evaluate whether the sources cited in an argument have internally consistent views and genuinely support the overall claim being made?
  7. The Power of Skepticism: Why is it important to be skeptical of arguments that rely heavily on quotations? How can critical thinking help us identify the Steppingstone Fallacy?
  8. The Scientist and Morality: The example discussed the Steppingstone Fallacy used with Richard Dawkins and objective morality. Can you think of alternative explanations for the existence of objective morality besides a divine lawgiver?
  9. The Fallacy’s Impact on Discussion: How can the Steppingstone Fallacy hinder a productive exchange of ideas? How can it lead to confusion and misrepresentation?
  10. Building a Stronger Foundation: In contrast to the Steppingstone Fallacy, how can you ensure your arguments are well-supported by evidence and a thorough understanding of the cited sources?
  11. Beyond the Quote: If someone uses a quote to support their argument, what follow-up questions can you ask to gain a deeper understanding of the source’s position?
  12. Refocusing the Conversation: When encountering the Steppingstone Fallacy, how can you bring the discussion back to the core arguments for or against the main point being debated?
  13. Alternative Explanations: Is it enough to simply point out the Steppingstone Fallacy? Why is it important to offer alternative explanations for the phenomena being used to support a faulty argument?
  14. Fallacies in Everyday Life: How can being aware of the Steppingstone Fallacy help you be a more discerning consumer of information in your daily life?
  15. Fallacies and Open-Mindedness: Can recognizing and avoiding fallacies make someone close-minded? Explain why critical thinking and open-mindedness go hand-in-hand.

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Provide a clear example of the process behind the logical fallacy described below:
    1. The Steppingstone Fallacy
      1. The Steppingstone Fallacy
        1. Step 1: Selective Agreement with a Medical Historian
        2. Step 2: Selective Agreement with a Biochemist
        3. Step 3: Selective Agreement with a Celebrity Endorsement
        4. In this Chain:
      2. Impact of the Steppingstone Fallacy
      3. Countering the Steppingstone Fallacy
      4. The Steppingstone Fallacy: Building a House of Cards
  2. The Steppingstone Fallacy is often used by theists who cite the cherry-picked opinions of non-theist, often framing the agreement as “Even X, who is not a God-believer, admits this.” Provide an authentic example of this.
    1. Example of The Steppingstone Fallacy in Theistic Arguments
      1. Step 1: Selective Agreement with a Renowned Physicist
      2. Step 2: Selective Agreement with an Atheist Philosopher
      3. Step 3: Selective Agreement with a Prominent Atheist
      4. In this Chain:
    2. Impact of the Steppingstone Fallacy
    3. Countering the Steppingstone Fallacy
    4. The Steppingstone Fallacy: A Slippery Slope to Misrepresentation in Theistic Arguments
  3. Provide a clear way a steppingstone fallacy can be exposed and dismissed.
    1. Exposing and Dismissing the Steppingstone Fallacy
      1. 1. Identify the Authorities Cited
      2. 2. Contextualize Each Authority’s Full Position
      3. 3. Highlight the Selective Agreement
      4. 4. Demonstrate the Inconsistency
      5. 5. Reassert the Ignored Context
    2. Example: Exposing the Steppingstone Fallacy in a Theistic Argument
      1. Step 1: Identify the Authorities Cited
      2. Step 2: Contextualize Each Authority’s Full Position
      3. Step 3: Highlight the Selective Agreement
      4. Step 4: Demonstrate the Inconsistency
      5. Step 5: Reassert the Ignored Context
    3. Conclusion
    4. Exposing and Dismantling the Steppingstone Fallacy: A Toolkit for Clear Thinking
  4. Quizzes
  5. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Discussion Questions
    2. Steppingstone Fallacy: Examining the Cracks in the Argument

Leave a comment

Phil Stilwell

Phil picked up a BA in Philosophy a couple of decades ago. After his MA in Education, he took a 23-year break from reality in Tokyo. He occasionally teaches philosophy and critical thinking courses in university and industry. He is joined here by ChatGPT, GEMINI, CLAUDE, and occasionally Copilot, Perplexity, and Grok, his far more intelligent AI friends. The seven of them discuss and debate a wide variety of philosophical topics I think you’ll enjoy.

Phil curates the content and guides the discussion, primarily through questions. At times there are disagreements, and you may find the banter interesting.

— Goals and Observations

Stay informed!

Sign up for new post notices.

Recent Posts

  • Grok Self-Reflection Experiment

    The post revolves around a theological debate between Phil and Vince regarding the concept of eternal punishment. Phil critiques the fairness of punishing finite actions with infinite consequences, arguing this collapses the notion of justice. Vince counters with… Read more

  • Where Consciousness Can & Must Emerge

    This inquiry emphasizes that consciousness is not dependent on physical substrate types but arises from specific network configurations. Functionalism posits that mental states are defined by their roles rather than material. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Workspace… Read more

  • Scoring the Accessibility of Philosophical Content

    The essay critiques the inaccessibility of philosophy, urging a return to clarity in philosophical writing. It introduces thirteen dimensions to evaluate accessibility: lexical determinacy, syntactic coherence, conceptual testability, and others. The scores for three philosophical works—William James’ “Pragmatism”… Read more

  • Assessing AI Alignment with Truth

    The discussion centers on the dynamics affecting AI alignment with truth. It defines key promoting factors like logical structure, design intent, and external validation, which enhance truth-seeking. Conversely, undermining factors such as biased training data, human agendas, and… Read more

  • Categories of Questions

    This post discusses different categories of questions: those answerable by science, subjective questions tied to emotions, and logically incoherent questions. It emphasizes that philosophical inquiries about existence and meaning often lack empirical backing, requiring alternative reasoning methods like… Read more

  • AI “Logic” & “Intelligence”

    This post critiques the ambiguous usage of “logic” and “intelligence,” arguing that such equivocations weaken discussions about rationality and conversational intelligence. It distinguishes logic as a subset of intelligence, emphasizing that intelligence is adaptive and contextual, while logic… Read more

  • Logic wherever Structure

    This post discusses the intrinsic relationship between existence and structure, emphasizing that anything that exists must have some form of structure, which enables subjective minds to assign logic to it. This logic emerges from inductive reasoning, allowing for… Read more

  • Model of Ethical Dynamics

    This post outlines a mathematical model designed to assess ethical dynamics within societies by factoring in psychological, social, and lifestyle influences. It highlights key components such as compassion, indignation, and the costs associated with ethical stances. Through examples,… Read more

Recent Posts — Expanded Version

Go back

Your message has been sent

Links to Section Menus