#STRask - Can Two Logical People Come to Conflicting Conclusions Without Committing a Fallacy?

Episode Date: January 8, 2026

Questions about whether two logical people can come to conflicting conclusions on a topic without committing a fallacy, how Greg, as a public figure, deals with criticism, and whether or not criticism gets to him.   Can two people come to conflicting conclusions on a topic while holding true to logic and reason without committing a fallacy? As a public figure, how do you deal with criticism, and does it get to you?

Welcome back. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel. Thank you so much for joining us. And we are going to get going right away, Greg, with this question. This one comes from Tyler. Can two people come to conflicting conclusions on a topic whilst holding true to logic and reason without. committing a fallacy. Yeah, sure. And, well, I guess it kind of depends, well, and maybe there's the clarification there, that holding to logic and reason without committing a fallacy. So if you mean they can be non-falacious, but still beholding to logic of reason, can there be a legitimate difference of opinion?

And the answer is yes. Now, again, a lot depends on what one means by logic. A logical syllogism, which is a line of reasoning, has multiple statements that come to a conclusion, and each of the statements are meant to add up to the conclusion. Now, if the statements are true and the and the form of the argument is good, then the conclusion follows of necessity.

So in that circumstance, if you have true premises and a form that is logically valid, then you have a sound conclusion, and the sound conclusion follows of necessity. In that circumstance, you can't have different conclusions, and people still be right. Somebody's making a mistake in thinking. Famously, all men are mortal. Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Now, that's the right form. Sometimes the form is wrong, and you have a formal mistake in logic. Sometimes you're bringing in a detail that is irrelevant. It's not part of the form, but it's irrelevant. Then you have an informal fallacy like it's not the form that's problematic. you're just name-calling, for example, or that's an ad homonym, or you're misrepresenting somebody else's view in your argument, that's a straw-man fallacy.

So the presumption there, and the question is those informal fallacies are not in play. Part of the ways that there's another qualification, and that is whether there is an ambiguity in the terms that are being used in the syllogism. That's called equivocation, where you use a term in your discussion in two different ways, and it's not clear. So famously, in this discussion about a political policy concern about whether there should be school vouchers, there was a broadcaster in L.A. used to always say public money for public education, public money for public education. Well, that sounds like it makes sense. Well, then you can't use any tax money to help private education.

But wait a minute, people are paying money into the taxes, and it's going out for education, but it's only going out for education if you go to a public school. So there seems to be a common sensibility to the argument, but there also, when you think about it, it seems to be something's wrong with this. Well, the thing that's wrong is an equivocation, because the word public is used in two different ways in that statement. Public funds means government money, and public education means government education. However, the government's money is from the people.

The government, except for recently, doesn't make money, print money, produce money. It just takes money from one person and gives it to the other. And so what you're saying is, the better way to remove the equivocation is public money is just another way of saying that the money is coming from private individuals through the government. So their private individual money that's going to the government who distributes it. So the statement should be money from the people should be used to educate the people. Well, if that's the case, then there's no argument against using tax money towards private education. But notice how in the way I characterize it, I was using the sense of the money source and the money use exactly the same, money from the people for education for the people. So I removed the equivocation, and it shows why that statement, public money for public education, is,

is flawed because of the equivocation. So the terms have to be used the same throughout the argument. And if they're not, even subtly, then the argument's not going to work. So sometimes that's a mistake. That's not really a fallacy. I guess you could call it the fallacy of equivocation, but that's something you have to watch out for. Also, remember, the premises have to be true

in order for the valid argument to be sound. Valid just means it follows an appropriate logical pattern, and they're different types of those. They have different Latin names, modus poland, monostalids, et cetera, et cetera. But they have to be set up correctly, and then the premises have to be true. The moral argument for God's existence goes, if there is no God, there is no objective morality, but there is objective morality, therefore there is a God. Now, that form is correct. That's called modus talons. But people can debate about whether you can have objective morality out of God, so it might be that the first premise isn't true, and you've got to debate about that.

That's where you can have differences of opinion. And even though you both agree that the argument is valid, it's in the right form, that doesn't mean it's sound if there's some question about the argument. truthfulness of the premises that lead to the conclusion. And so you can have people who differ on that for very good reasons that seem reasonable to them, and arguably they are reasonable. It's just which line of thinking regarding the truth of a premise is more compelling to the individual who is holding a view or competing with another view. And so in the moral argument, people say, no, you can get, you can get morality out of evolution.

Well, that's not going to work, but you have to work through that and show why. You're only going to get relativistic morality. You're not going to get object of morality. Well, morality could be accounted to through platonic forms or something like that. And, well, that's not going to work for a few reasons, but somebody proposes that idea might think that that's a way to falsify the first premise. So I think that if you're working syllogistically in a careful argument and it's formally valid and you can demonstrate that the premises are true, unequivocally so, then you can't have a difference of opinion then about the conclusion and both people be reasonable and rational. But notice, as people are probably aware of the syllogism about Socrates and mortality of men, that's a simple one. Most aren't that simple.

There are multiple steps. And so you have to pay attention to all the steps. And this requires that, I think, that we show charity to people who disagree, who just don't see that some of the syllogism, some of the premises of the syllogism are sound ones, are accurate. are truthful. And also, both parties may be unaware of equivocation. How about this one? Jesus is God. God is a Trinity. Therefore, Jesus is a Trinity. Oh, wait a minute. Well, that sounds right, but it sounds wrong, too. What's going on there? There's equivocation in the words, and the equivocation is the word is, because there's five ways to understand what the word is means. you know, is of essential predication,

part's whole is, et cetera, et cetera. I can't always remember the five. But so there's an equivocation in there that, and that was thrown at me by a Jehovah's Witness. You know, this is why Jesus is God, because this is being Jesus is a Trinity, blah, blah, blah. So anyway, I think hopefully that gives people a perspective at how these things work

and also to be charitable with people who disagree, and let's find the point of disagreement in the whole reasoning process. And I think even if you have everything, you're using exact same terms, all those things, the problem as you touched on, Greg, is that there are so many factors that play into all, just evaluating the premises, that you'd have to get to all of those factors. There are very few things that fit very completely. into one little syllogism. If that were the case, then, of course, we would, I think anyone who's not making a mistake would agree, as you said.

But the thing is that in most kinds of questions we're dealing with, there are a lot of things affecting how people evaluate it. So there are presuppositions. So people come to a question, let's say we're talking about which interpretation of scripture is correct. people are coming there with all sorts of presuppositions that they don't even realize. So as they're coming, you might make an argument that is completely sound and nobody's making any logical mistake, but you have these other background ideas that are moving you in one direction or the other. When you say completely sound, even with the background ideas, that has to be influencing how you see the premises and the plausibility of the premises, right? Sure, but I just mean that you can be completely logical and come to different conclusions because not everything fits into one little syllogism when people are reasoning through things. Let me give an example. So I loved the show lost. It was a great show. But as time was going on, you know, we're, I don't remember how many seasons there were, but let's say we're four seasons into it. We have a lot of information. And people had all sorts of theories about how all the information.

fit together. Now, the fact that we had different theories didn't mean that one of us was being illogical. It's just that we didn't have all the information we need to, we needed to make a definitive conclusion about what it meant. But this is more about, it's not so much about a logical thing of fact, but an assessment of an author's intent. Is that a fair way of characterize it? Well, this is why I say, you know, the question is, how can two people come to conflicting conclusions on a topic? Oh, I see. So it depends on what kind of a topic we're talking about, because Tyler is not clear about what kind of topic he's talking about. So I was limiting mine to my left brain analysis that you're bringing in a right brain analysis of this kind of stuff.

Well, most of the time when we're- Which is entirely fair. So most of the time when we're trying to come to conclusions about politics or or scripture or whatever it is, It's not like neatly fitting into a logical syllogism. So you can be completely logical and make a logical case, but there are, maybe we don't have every single bit of information we need to say that this is definitive. We have to, you know, at some point, our presuppositions are going to play into how we respond. Well, I was just thinking of a slogan, the rich need to pay their fair share. Well, of course, the operative word there is the word fair.

What does fairness look like? And that's going to be informed by different understandings about how economic structures should work and what obligation we have to the poor or whatever. So maybe that would be an example of what you're talking about. Yeah. And so in that case, I think you just have to keep moving back and back in your arguments to find those presuppositions that are factoring into this. Sure. Yeah. And the farther back you go, the more likely you are to come to the same conclusion.

foundational, something as foundational. Yeah, because if you're the view that informs that particular slogan, the idea of fairness, is going to be more socialistic as opposed to more, from each according to his need, from each according to his ability and to each according to his need. Now, that's actually Marx, so that I was just citing there, versus a more meritorious kind. of sense of compensation. There you have two different concepts of fairness rooted in an underlying ideology, and you're saying you've got to go deeper to find out which underlying ideology is really the best in terms of governing human beings and wealth and rights and all that other stuff. Yeah, that's a good point.

You have to have the same presuppositions and the same goals in order to come to the same conclusion, I think. Yeah. Okay, Greg, let's take a question from Ted. as a public figure, how do you deal with criticism and does it get to you? Well, this is an excellent question because it's not just as a public figure. This applies to personal things as well. I'm trying to think of the best way to navigate this issue.

I don't get a lot of public criticism, I would say, because I'm not in venues where people are prone to criticize me. So you have some people going to campuses and advancing very controversial, cultural, culturally related issues, points of view on those issues.

And so consequently, you get a lot of people coming up and pushing back hard. I get pushbacks by atheists when I speak publicly or others who disagree with me. Those are, in my experience, has been not too much.

Now, I do get criticized. online more often, I guess, but I don't generally, you guys save me from most of that stuff because it's not helpful. Now, just recently, I'm not going to go to the issue right now, but there has been some pushback online about something I said on a show. And so, though I don't receive a lot of criticism personally, I want to take disagreement different from criticism because somebody can disagree. We disagree. You and I.

A few,ish, is not too many theologically and ethically. But there's more disagreement with other members of our team, and this isn't problematic for me. And when people disagree with me on some things, and it's a principal disagreement here at blah, blah, blah, blah, that's, I can flow with that.

Criticism I see differently. Then it's critique. Then it's going after me personally because of my beliefs. That's harder. And just think in marriage relationships, for example, probably when, I think generally when you have reasonably healthy individuals with reasonably stable ego strengths, there's room to be able to point out differences of opinion and argue for different points or direction to go, whatever. But when that turns to be critical and it's global, like you're always this or you always, that becomes more difficult because now it's attack on the person and not the view. It's more difficult. And so in the same way, for me, I don't like to have my person attacked.

Maybe I'm a little bit more resilient in that circumstance to public issues because I've had to face it more often. But it's still not easy for me. And I think sometimes people will see, well, how does he keep his cool in the midst of that? I saw that happen publicly. And somebody's coming on really strong. And that's a discipline for me for two things. One of them as a virtue, I want to be disciplined to be virtuous, even in non-public circumstances, but it's also I want to, everybody's listening, you know.

So the way I react in a circumstance is going to have an impact on other people, either a negative or positive. Either it's a salutary influence on them because or it's going to be, you know, destructive in some way because of the way I'm reacting. And so I'm mindful of both of those things in a public circumstance, in a private, I'm more mindful of the first one I'm trying to respond virtuously. And I think that is a fruit of the spirit, probably the best way to put it. Fruit becomes, it's something that develops over time, but we give it, it's a fruit of the

spirit, but that's not apart from our own discipline involvement. Scripture talks about disciplining yourself for the purpose of godliness. So I'm thinking, how am I supposed to respond in this circumstance, the manner in which I respond, not the content, the manner to this attack on me personally. Now, sometimes, and there are occasions, doesn't happen too often because I don't think there's need for it too often, but what I'm here on the show, or maybe talking before an audience, I got my team members, you guys and everybody else that are in the audience. I get feedback from you guys.

While you're a little harsher, that guy, you went over the top a little bit, whatever. It hasn't happened as much lately as it's happened to the past because I've tried to learn from those things. But, you know, and I even ask you guys, gee, was that a little bit on the air? You know, during the break, maybe I was a little too strong. So I'm looking for feedback to find out what actually took place. And this is another part of it. So if there's criticism of me, I need to ask whether the basis, the thing that is being raised against me is actually true.

It may be. And if it is, then I have to make some adjustments, which I guess you could use, to use spiritual language, confession and repentance. But this is just a way of acknowledging that it did wrong and apologizing if that that's necessary and changing my course of direction, okay? So we don't have to get all spiritual wordy about it. The point is, look, if I did what was wrong, maybe I need to say, I'm sorry, or just say, yeah, that was a mistake, and I got caught in that,

and somebody showed me that, and, okay, my bad, let's move on. I'm going to try to do better next time. Simple as that. Sometimes, though, I think the challenge is based on misunderstanding, and so I have to go back, and this one I'm facing right now is something I said on the air, And I think there was a misunderstanding in what I was trying to get across. But part of the reason the misunderstanding was there is because I don't think people were trying to interpret what I said in a charitable way. So my comments were equivocal.

They could have been understood this way. He maybe means this or maybe he means that. I'm going to assume he means that and I'm bugged at him and I'm going to tell him. When I don't think, as I look back on the details, I didn't mean what they thought. I meant something different. and I thought it was fairly clear, but all right, but I can clarify. Now, if I clarify, and this is my view, and the feedback I've gotten from people I trust, like you guys, is that you weren't out of line here in terms of the content, or actually the way you said it,

then I'm going to clarify what I meant, so there's no confusion, no equivocation, and then I'm going to say, there you go. Now, if you don't like it, fine, be mad at me. Do whatever. I mean, that's just the way it goes. But I've done my own assessment, and I don't think what I said, what I intended to say or mean, was mistaken, and I don't think I said it in a bad way. And now I've tried to make my point really clear so there's no misunderstanding. And if you still don't like it, okay, nothing I can do about that.

I'm going to have to stand by it. Now, again, to the emotional side of this, that's not always easy. But it's a lot easier if in the midst of it I've had a chance to assess and see, did I misspeak here? And sometimes I do. Or did I speak in an inappropriate way to cause offense that wasn't justified or necessary? Jesus offended people very clearly. You know, I offended the Pharisees and the scribes says, you offended those guys. And they said, and okay, I got something for you too.

And another thing, you know. So just that there's a fence doesn't mean you're miss speaking. But that's the process that I go through. I don't like it when I get criticized, but I have to take it seriously. And the worst response is a knee-jerk reaction of defensiveness. Okay, there's a line in Shakespeare, and the line says, me, thanks, thou dost protest too much. And the point there is, when people kind of go overboard in a reaction, that's an indication

something else is going on. Maybe really, really debilitating ego weakness. In other words, people have such a weak ego that they can't take anybody saying anything to them that's even the slightest negative. Well, that's a problem for the person because now they're, you know, you can't solve problems with a person like that because you bring them up and there's, already a reaction. Or maybe the reaction indicates that the person who raised the concern is really onto something, and that's why there's such a strong defensiveness. It's one thing to respond,

but the way you're responding, it looks like something else is going on here. Like I'm hitting the mark. As people say, you know, you only get flack in combat, airplane combat, when you're over the target kind of deal. So those are, I want to be sure, and this is also. discipline, and I've gotten better over the years, but I still have to be vigilant. I want to be sure not to react with defensiveness. It's amazing how many times Scripture talks about humility and the importance of the humility, 1st Peter 4, humble yourself under the mighty hand of God. He will exalt you in the proper time. I was just reading it was Psalm 28 or 29 last night. Lots of things in there about humility. And the Magnificat of Mary,

after the message, after speaking with Elizabeth in Luke chapter one, she talks about the humble there so many times. So, excuse me, that needs to be a conscious part of our response to things. I so appreciate this question. I think because we're so much online now, people are interacting online and what happens is you have removed that personal connection with the person you're talking to so people feel they feel fine about saying the worst ugliest things that they want on the internet to you. And I know we used to have comments on our blog and we don't anymore for various reasons, but I had to read all those and it does wear on you. So I can appreciate this question. I understand it completely. I do have a few ideas to help you deal with how

I guess the emotional side to this. And the first thing is, I think what you have to do is decide that you care about truth more than anything else. You have to care about truth because that's the only way you'll be willing to humble yourself if they say something that's true. Like maybe their criticism is true, as you said, and you have to come back and apologize or change your mind or write a retraction or whatever it is. You have to, care more about truth than you do about looking good or feeling good. Because it's not easy, but you have to care about truth. Secondly, I think you have to decide that your purpose is to glorify God's name, not your own name. And this goes along with that first one. If you care more

about God's name than your name, then you will care more about truth because you want to glorify God in truth. So if there's something you've done that's wrong, you want to correct that. And who cares about humbling yourself and saying you were wrong if you care about God's name and glorifying God more than yourself? So I think that's something you need to be consciously aware of. By the way, to just add, though, that still could be painful to humble yourself. I mean, we do care about it in a certain sense, but you're asking care by comparison. If we care more about God will suffer the pain of humiliation or being humbled, I guess is a better way to put it, if necessary, because something else is more important.

Right. And then third, I think we need to keep in mind, and this is for the times when criticism is given. Maybe it's not true, or maybe it's true, but it's given in an awful way. Well, that's when we think about reflecting Christ to people, and that's when we show grace to them. And this is where First Peter is a big help, because we are to imitate Christ to show who he is to others. That's actually an apologetic. We are a parable of the gospel to others. So if you think about that being an apologetic, not that, oh, I'm a good person, but your apologetic is, I am taking this abuse. and I'm giving back grace because I want them to see who Christ is.

So that can help you to stay strong also. And I think the more you go through it, the better you get at it, the more used to it you get, the easier it is, even when it's hard, it gets better. Right, right. It's not quite as hard forever, but you have to be willing to suffer for the truth and for God's glory. Yeah, let me add something here too. this is something that I'm learning, but I learned this in a big way. It really came down on me many, many years ago that trying to maintain a facade of perfection that is what triggers

a defensive response. I can't be wrong. I can't be seen as something. This is a tremendous burden to carry. It's an absolutely tremendous burden. And generally, God disabuses us of that tendency or idea through humbling us, you know, if we don't humble ourselves, he humbles us. And once we get into that position and let it sink in and start living more on that level, then we think, oh, this is so much easier than maintaining this facade. And just adding that because people are sometimes very resistant to being humbled because so much at stake because they have this thing built up that they don't, this image, and they don't want it to be taken away from them, but it's a tremendous burden to have to carry that

responsibility to always look that way. And when you take, if you are schooled by the Holy Spirit to be in a more humble position, it's just a whole lot easier. So true, Craig. Thank you so much, Tyler and Ted. We appreciate hearing from you. And we hope to hear your question on X with the hashtag STR Ask, or you can always go to our website at STR.org. And we really do look forward to hearing from you. If you've had that question in the back of your mind for a while, go today. Send that to us. We'd love to hear from you. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel for Stand to Reason.