|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2009 : 16:16:09 [Permalink]
|
Similar to the question-begging epithet is the fallacy called complex question. This is the interrogative form of begging the question—when the arguer attempts to persuade by asking a loaded question. A classic example is this: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Either a yes or no answer would seem to imply that the person did in the past beat his wife, which may not be the case. The question is “complex” because it should be divided into two questions:
1.Did you ever beat your wife?
2.If so, have you now stopped doing this? |
Yeah I've actually heard it. But used in discussions on logical fallacy to explain a form of logical fallacy which you did quite nicely filthy. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 09/03/2009 : 19:19:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
His whole dissertation, if you can call it that, is that the Theory of Evolution is no more than an assumption. |
I can't say that I have read his stuff, but I thought that I would just inject that evolution, like any theory, IS built on numerous assumptions. Of course, these assumptions are themselves testable and not just taken out of thin air.
On a similar note, I urge anyone to read Elliot Sober's article from the March 2007 issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology - "What is wrong with Intelligent Design?". Elliot's writing (or, is it perhaps the subject at hand) is not easy, but worthwhile. In essence, his article shows why ID assumptions fail to be testable. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/07/2009 : 09:09:58 [Permalink]
|
Ok kiddies, here we go again. I must remark that Dr. Lisle seldom disappoints. He's a pretty decent writer with a story to tell, and by damn & grab he's gonna tell it come hell, high water, or da filth!
The Is/Ain't Fallacy
Ol' Jason is actually doing a legitimate fallacy this time, instead twisting around all that “assumption” crap, and one we've seen many times in here, usually committed by creationists. We shall see it done again before this screed runs out space.
A person commits the fallacy of bifurcation when he or she claims that there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities—when, in fact, there is a third option. For this reason the fallacy is also known as the either-or fallacy and the false dilemma.
A facetious example is this:
“Either the traffic light is red, or it is green.”
This is obviously fallacious, since the light could be yellow.1
A more realistic example is this:
“Either you have faith or you are rational.”
This commits the fallacy of bifurcation, since there is a third possibility: we can have faith and be rational. In fact, faith is essential in order to have rationality (e.g., to make sense of laws of logic).
|
Faith is not a requirement for anything unless you are into something like jumping off bridges. This Begs the Question of: Faith in what? It is also on the cusp of an Appeal To Authority.
Either the universe operates in a law-like fashion, or God is constantly performing miracles.”
This is also fallacious because a third possibility exists: the universe operates in a law-like fashion most of the time, and God occasionally performs a miracle.
|
It has yet to be demonstrated that any God miracleated anything. Hand Waving. Appeal to Authority. Spouting Unsupported Bullshit.
| Sometimes the origins debate is framed as “faith vs. reason,” “science or religion,” or the “Bible vs. science.” These are all false dilemmas. Faith and reason are not contrary. They go well together (since all reasoning presupposes a type of faith). |
Reason presupposes no such thing. And as for the so-called “origins debate,” there is none. We don't know and you don't either. Red Herring.
| Likewise, science and religion (the Christian religion to be specific) are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is the Christian system that makes sense of science and the uniformity of nature. Likewise the debate should never be framed as “the Bible vs. science,” since the procedures of science are fully compatible with the Bible. In fact, science is based on the biblical worldview; science requires predictability in nature, which is only made possible by the fact that God upholds the universe in a consistent way that is congenial to human understanding. Such predictability just wouldn't make sense in a “chance” universe. |
Straw Man, Appeal to Authority, Red Herring – a really odoriferous one, and the BS one as well.
The fallacy of bifurcation may be more difficult to spot when the person merely implies that only two options exist, rather than explicitly stating this.
“I could never live by faith because I am a rational person.”
This sentence tacitly presents us with only two options: either faith, or rationality. But, as we've mentioned before, these are not exclusive. A rational person must have some degree of faith. So, the Christian takes the third, u |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 09/07/2009 09:16:08 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2009 : 13:25:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
| Sometimes the origins debate is framed as “faith vs. reason,” “science or religion,” or the “Bible vs. science.” These are all false dilemmas. Faith and reason are not contrary. They go well together (since all reasoning presupposes a type of faith). |
Reason presupposes no such thing. |
It does in Dr. Lisle's mind. He's a presuppositionalist, and so rejects any method of escaping solipsism which does not rely on God. Presuppositionalism is itself a false dichotomy, as it boils down to "either God provides us with a reliable method of knowing, or all ontologies are unreliable." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2009 : 14:22:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by filthy
| Sometimes the origins debate is framed as “faith vs. reason,” “science or religion,” or the “Bible vs. science.” These are all false dilemmas. Faith and reason are not contrary. They go well together (since all reasoning presupposes a type of faith). |
Reason presupposes no such thing. |
It does in Dr. Lisle's mind. He's a presuppositionalist, and so rejects any method of escaping solipsism which does not rely on God. Presuppositionalism is itself a false dichotomy, as it boils down to "either God provides us with a reliable method of knowing, or all ontologies are unreliable."
|
Yeh..... 
The thing is that, as I have said before, this is not a discussion of logical fallacies at all. It is a shabbily cloaked and rather half-assed attack on the ToE. "But 'tis an ill wind indeed, that blows no one good." I'm getting a badly needed touch-up on logical fallacies myself, just tracking down his. Turns out, I'm pretty rusty. When it's finally over, I think I'll send the good doctor a nice thank you card, no anthrax.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2009 : 14:54:36 [Permalink]
|
I've been waiting for this one.
Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem
by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S.
September 14, 2009
| The phrase ad hominem is Latin and means “to the man.” The fallacy is so named because it directs an argument against the person making a claim rather than the claim itself. The critic hopes that people will believe the claim in question is false simply on the basis that there is something objectionable about the person making the claim. For example, “You cannot honestly accept John's claims about politics because he can't even find a job!” However, John's inability to find employment is logically irrelevant to the political claim he is making. |
I'll buy that. Irrelevancies have no place in argument other than jest. Otherwise, they are the Non Sequitur Fallacy
| The fallacy comes in two varieties: abusive ad hominem and circumstantial ad hominem. In the abusive ad hominem, the critic attacks his opponent's character or insults him in an attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the audience. This tactic is common in politics, and it may psychologically sway people. However, it is logically fallacious because a person's character (or lack thereof) is logically irrelevant to the validity of his argument. Even if the critic's negative claims about his opponent are true (e.g., he really is a draft-dodger, or he really did spend time in jail), this has no bearing on the position he is advocating. |
We are on shaky ground here. If the opponent is a known liar, and has been caught at it, as so many creationists have, it is logical to call him on a claim. If he cannot back it up, there is no ad hom.
| Name-calling is perhaps the most obvious form of the abusive ad hominem fallacy. When children have a heated disagreement, they sometimes engage in such behavior. As we grow up, we are supposed to become rational and learn to make arguments based on logical reasoning. However, since there is no rationally sound argument for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly resorting to name-calling. I recall a particular instance where an evolutionist launched into a name-calling diatribe against Ken Ham.1 Such immature behavior reminds us that the evolutionary worldview is utterly intellectually bankrupt.2 |
Does he refer to me, mayhap? 
I refer to my answer above; Ham in an inveterate liar and I, among many others, will name him for it and call him out. Nothing he says can be taken at face value, therefore it is logical to make that point.
| The circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is when a critic simply dismisses a person's argument based on the arguer's circumstances. Suppose Susie makes an argument that taxes on gasoline should be increased. Her opponent, Bobby, tries to refute this by pointing out that Susie's job is tax-supported, so she is strongly motivated to argue for higher taxes. Bobby concludes that Susie's argument is wrong since Susie has a bias. Bobby has committed the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy—just because Susie is strongly motivated to defend a particular position does not mean that her argument is faulty. |
At this point, it is up to Bobby to support his claim. If he can do this, there is no ad hom, circumstantial or otherwise.
A non-Christian might argue:
“Christianity isn't true. You just believe in Christianity because you were brought up in a Christian home. If you were brought up in the Islam religion, you would be a Muslim now.” |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2009 : 07:28:15 [Permalink]
|
Argumentum ad verecundiam
The faulty appeal to authority is, in a way, the opposite of the ad hominem fallacy. Whereas the ad hominem fallacy denies a claim based on the person making it, the faulty appeal to authority endorses a claim simply based on the person making it. Essentially, the faulty appeal to authority is the argument that a claim is true simply because someone else believes it.
The basic structure of the argument is this:
1.Bill believes X.
2.Therefore, X is true.
Of course, it is almost never stated this explicitly. Often, the person to whom the appeal is made is considered highly esteemed for one reason or another. But the truthfulness of the claim at issue is not necessarily relevant to the popularity of the individual making the claim. |
Indeed. We see that whenever we are visited by 'most any YEC. But before one can appeal to the authority of another, one needs to be sure that authority actually exists. Being certain without authoritative support is merely the Sucking Wind fallacy.
| In the origins debate, the faulty appeal is often to someone who is considered an expert on a particular topic—a scientist or perhaps a theologian. For example, “Dr. Bill has a PhD in biology, and he believes in evolution.” The unstated conclusion is that evolution must therefore be true or is at least likely to be true. But such an argument is fallacious. After all, we could equally point out that “Dr. Dave also has a PhD in biology, and he believes in biblical creation.” The fact that other experts on the topic draw the opposite conclusion should reveal the vacuous nature of the evolutionist’s argument. |
Ah, but Dr. Bill has it all over Dr. Dave in evidential support – assuming that Dr. Dave is using some religious text or other as reference. And if he is not, Dr. Dave might have become a Nobel nominee in science – if he could verify his findings.
I see that we are again starting on the “origins” Straw Man.
Another example would be this:
“Jim has a doctorate in theology, and he says it’s okay to believe in evolution and the Bible.”
Again, we could certainly find many qualified theologians who would state the exact opposite. While it is okay to consider what a theologian has to say about the Bible, it is infinitely more important to consider what the Bible actually states! |
Yes indeed! Unfortunately, the Bible and works of the same nature, are not the results of rigorous scientific investigation and therefore are less than trustworthy as scientific reference.
| If an expert on U.S. law claimed that the Constitution does not contain the phrase “We the people,” would that make it so? We could easily refute his claim by simply reading from an actual copy of the Constitution. The fact that he is an expert does not override the evidence. |
Now he's Flogging the Dead Horse. Again. One one or two examples are quite enough to get the point across. Any more and you might wonder if he isn't tossing Red Herrings about.
| Not all appeals to authority are faulty appeals to authority. It is legitimate to consider the opinion of an expert on a particular topic. None of us has the time or the ability to verify each and every truth claim that has ever been made. We can and should rely upon the expertise of others at times. So, when does the appeal to authority become a fallacy? It seems there are three common ways in which this occurs: |
Indeed?
And now I'm reminded of the notorious Gish Gallop, where utter crap is spewed at such a rapid pace that no one can keep up with it. Sometimes I wonder if a Creationist can verbally debate without it.
1.| Appealing to an expert in an area that is not his area of expertise. Our hypothetical Dr. Bill may indeed have a PhD in biology—and that qualifies him to say something about how organisms function today. But does knowledge of how things work today necessarily imply knowledge of how things came to be? This is a separate question. The experiments Dr. Bill has done and the observations he has made have all taken place in the present world. He has no more direct observations of the ancient past than anyone else today.1 The question of origins is a history question that deals with worldviews [sic]. It is not really a biology question, and, so, Dr. Bill’s opinion on the topic of origins isn’t necessarily any more qualified than any other opinion. |
Up to a point, this is true. However Dr. Bill has reams of geologic and genetic evidence to support his argument. As for “origins,” Bill doesn't know and neither does Dave, whatever his claims.
| Failure to consider the worldview [sic] of the expert and how this might affect his interpretation of the data. We all have a world-and-life view—a philosophy that guides our understanding of the universe. When we interpret scientific and historical evidence, we use this philosophy to draw conclusions.2 The fact that Dr. Bill believes in evolution means that he is predisposed to interpret the evidence in a particular way. (My point is not to fault him for this; everyone has biases. Rather, we should simply be mindful of what his biases are). A creationist with the same credentials might draw a very different conclusion from the same data. So, while I may put confidence in what Dr. Bill says about the structure of a particular protein that he has studied under the microscope, his bias against biblical creation means it would be unwise for me to trust his opinions on questions of origins. |
As stated, Bill doesn't know nor does Dave, nor you nor I. The difference is that neither Bill nor I have claimed to. As soon as the word “origins” entered the conversation, the Straw Man was set alight.
| Treating a fallible expert as infallible. We should also keep in mind that even experts do not know everything. They can make mistakes even in their own field. Some new discovery may cause a scientist to change his mind about something that he thought he knew. So, at best, appealing to an expert yields only a probable conclusion. It would be fallacious to argue that something definitely must be true simply because a (fallible) expert believes it. |
Why do I find myself suddenly reminded of Jonathon Sarfati and Jonathon Wells?
| Of course, if the expert had knowledge of everything and never lied, then there would be no fallacy in accepting his statements as absolutely true. In fact, it would be absurd to not do so under those circumstances. The Bible claims to be such an infallible source—a revelation from the God who knows everything and cannot lie.3 Thus, there is no fallacy in appealing to Scripture as absolutely authoritative. Some evolutionists have mistakenly accused creationists of committing the faulty appeal to authority on this very issue. |
Could he be referring to me? Again? If this Reasoning gets any more Circular, we could use it for a unicycle.
| Another type of faulty appeal to authority is the appeal to the majority. This is when a person argues that a claim must be true simply because most people believe it. But, of course, just because a majority of people believe something does not make it so. History is replete with examples of when the majority was totally wrong. Truth is not decided by a vote, after all. |
Exactly right!
| This fallacy is so obvious it is hard to believe that people would fall for it. But there is something very psychologically seductive about the appeal to the majority. We are inclined to think, “How could all those people be wrong?”4 Of course, it could well be the case that many people in that majority are convinced of the claim at issue for exactly the same reason: because all the other people in that majority believe it (which is no logical reason at all.) |
Safety in numbers? They know something I don't? Monkey see, monkey do?
This is Argumentum ad Populum and is a separate, logical fallacy of it's own.
The appeal to the majority is often combined with the appeal to an expert—an appeal to the majority of experts. Evolutionists often commit this double-fallacy; they try to support their case by pointing out:
“The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution. (Therefore, evolution is very likely to be true).”
However, simply adding two fallacies together does not form a good argument! Again, we could point to many historical examples of cases where the scientific consensus was dead wrong. Yet, people continue to perpetuate this fallacy. |
And.....?
We sometimes hear phrases like
“According to mainstream science . . . ,”
“The scientific establishment . . . ,”
or
“the scientific consensus is . . . ,”
as an alleged proof of a particular claim. Another example is this: |
This is a statement and proof of nothing until it is elaborated upon by data. And I must remind: when science is “dead wrong” it is soon corrected by more science, not religious blather.
“Creationists teach that the world is roughly 6000 years old, but the majority of scientists disagree.”
This sentence is true, but the unstated conclusion is that we must accept the opinion of the majority of experts—which is logically fallacious. |
As all of the evidence supports a world far greater in age than a mere 6,000 year, geological twitch, I think we can safely go with the majority in this case.
| As with a single expert, it is not fallacious to consider the opinion of a group of experts. However, as before, we should consider whether they are qualified in the issue under investigation, be mindful of their worldview [sic] and biases, and keep in mind that they are fallible people with finite knowledge. |
As are you, some knowledges being more finite than others. What was the field of research does your Ph.D represent, again? Are you an “expert” in it that I can reference? What have you published in it's journals lately?
| I believe that God gave people different interests and is pleased when they study hard and develop expertise on some aspect of His creation. It is commendable to esteem the opinion of experts, provided that we are discerning and never regard fallible human opinions above (or equal to) the authoritative Word of God. |
Non sequitur, private, unsupported opinion, and therefore nonsense. Also, you guessed it, Argumentum ad verecundiam to finish it off.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2009 : 16:28:28 [Permalink]
|
| The Bible claims to be such an infallible source—a revelation from the God who knows everything and cannot lie.3 Thus, there is no fallacy in appealing to Scripture as absolutely authoritative. |
 |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Logical fallacies: this oughta be good!
