A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

Then you should point to the evidence that supports the position. This is how all debates should work. You can quote 10 experts and you will still only cover less than 0.01% of experts in a given field. Quoting multiple experts does not guarantee that you are pointing to the consensus opinion, nor the most reasonable conclusion.

No. We are appealing to the methodologies and results described in the paper. Passing peer review only guarantees that the paper is of better quality than something made up on the spot. The conclusions and the quality of the results can still be argued even if it passes peer review. There is nothing in the rules of logic that require something to be peer reviewed in order to be valid. We could look at the RATE study on helium diffusion as an example. That paper was never peer reviewed, but people still engaged the paper on its own merits.

The burden of proof is often shifted in debates on fora like this one.Burden of proof fallacy:1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
Page not found - NizkorExamples:Claim: Irreducibly complex structures can not evolve in a step wise manner. It is argued that this claim is true because no one has been able to point to an IC system that has evolved in a step wise manner.This fallacy is tied closely to the Argument from False Dichotomy fallacy and the Argument from Incredulity.

quote:

---

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

​

The general form of the argument is as follows.

​

Major premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Minor premise (unstated): If P were so, one could imagine (or would have imagined) how.
Conclusion: Not-P.
Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

---

As noted previously, Behe not being able to imagine how an IC system could evolve in a stepwise manner does not mean that an IC system could not evolve in a stepwise manner. The same fallacy applies to not being able to imagine a universe without a designer. If you start an argument with "I can't believe . . . " then stop writing, erase what you have written, and start over.

Hi Taq,So, just to pick an example completely at random, if a person were to write; then that would be an argument from incredulity? That's fascinating. I'm sure glad that no-one around here has written anything like that recently.Learning about logic is fun! Mutate and Survive

Hi Granny Magda yes that would be an argument from incredulity.similar is argument from ignorance:

quote:

---

It must be {x} because I do not know of any other explanation

---

A different explanation could already exist in our knowledge base, but the author of the argument is unaware of it (or chooses to be ignorant of it). Indeed, and one of the things that I have learned more about on this site.A good reference I use is
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htmWhile it does not cover all logical fallacies (if that is conceivable), it does present them in the format of the op: definition, examples, ways to show the fallacy is not valid in the particular argument.For instance:

quote:

---

Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)

​

Definition:

​

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:

1. the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
2. experts in the field disagree on this issue.
3. the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
   ​
   A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

​

Examples:

​

1. Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub.
2. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues that a tight money policy s the best cure for a recession. (Although Galbraith is an expert, not all economists agree on this point.)
3. We are headed for nuclear war. Last week Ronald Reagan remarked that we begin bombing Russia in five minutes. (Of course, he said it as a joke during a microphone test.)
4. My friend heard on the news the other day that Canada will declare war on Serbia. (This is a case of hearsay; in fact, the reporter said that Canada would not declare war.)
5. The Ottawa Citizen reported that sales were up 5.9 percent this year. (This is hearsay; we are not n a position to check the Citizen's sources.)

​

Proof:

​

Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the field, or that (ii) there is general disagreement among the experts in the field on this point.

​

References:

​

Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 95, Davis: 69

---

:: Note that the "argument from hearsay" listed above is also known as the appeal to anonymous authority. Curiously, citing the fact that a paper has passed peer review means an appeal to anonymous authority (the reviewers).:: Note further that appealing to "the majority of biological scientists" as validation for the theory of evolution is also treading into the Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum).The real test of validity of a conclusion lies in the evidence - objective empirical evidence - that substantiates the premises and in the proper construction of the logical deductions.If the structure is valid, then the conclusion follows from the premises, and then (and only then) the truth of the conclusion is based on the truth of the premises: if the premises are true then the conclusion is true.Normally, in science, we cannot be guaranteed that the premises are true, only that they approximate truth to the best of our (current) knowledge, and thus the conclusion/s are equally tentative as approximations of truth. invalid vs falseThere is frequently confusion between invalid and false in these debates (and I think this is a large part of the issue in the proceeding debate over the appeal to authority).A logical argument that is flawed in the structure is invalid, and this is essentially the problem with logical fallacies.Invalid means that the conclusion is not properly derived from the premises, but it does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily false.Strip away the invalid structure and premises, and you are left with an unsubstantiated guess rather than a derived conclusion.If it cannot be shown that this guess is actually false (ie -- objective empirical evidence shows the earth to be billions of years old, and this falsifies any unsubstantiated guess that the earth is less than 10,000 years old), then it is possible that the guess is correct, even though there is no evidence for it. This could range from the possibility of guessing heads or tails on a flipped coin to the possibility of guessing the winning ticket to win a lottery from millions of tickets available.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : enlgis

I realise that you meant well, but Granny was being sarcastic (ironic?) - referring to the OP's repeated use of the word 'inconceivable' in the thread that originated this 'spin-off' thread.Other than that: nice post. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Another popular fallacy used by ID/Creationists is Affirming the Consequent, or more commonly called "Begging the Question":

quote:

---

1. If P then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.

​

The argument is built like this:

​

1. If God reveals himself in the Bible, the Bible will be preserved despite its critics.
2. The Bible is preserved despite its critics.
3. Therefore, God reveals himself in the Bible.

​

But obviously this does not follow. Affirming the consequent of an If then statement cannot not prove the ‘if’ part. Rather, affirming the ‘if’ (antecedent) part of an If then statement can prove the ‘then’ part.

​

Such an argument would look like this:

​

1. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Luke Muehlhauser

---

As it is used by ID/Creationists:1. If something is designed then it will have coded information.
2. Life has coded information.
3. Therefore, life is designed.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Another very common fallacy is called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, or the Bridge Hand Fallacy:

quote:

---

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is using the same data to both construct and test a hypothesis. Its name comes from a parable where a Texan fires his gun at the side of a barn, then paints a target around the shots and claims to be a sharpshooter. A hypothesis must be constructed before data is collected based on that hypothesis. If one data set is used to construct a hypothesis, then a new data set must be generated (ideally, in a different way, based on predictions made by the hypothesis) to test it.

​

Texas sharpshooter fallacy - RationalWiki

---

The Fine Tuning argument is based on this fallacy. It is argued that the odds of the universe having these exact characteristics are so high that it had to be designed. Behe is also guilty of using this argument when he argues for the improbability of multiple mutations producing a specific phenotype. In both cases, this is painting the bull's eye around the bullet hole.

That is not the form of the argument. Otherwise I would argue that a sculpture had coded information. Lol.It is as follows; If something has information, it has been put there by something mindful, an intelligent agency. (which self-evidently follows)

​

Life has complex, mind blowing information and info-density, therefore has been put there by an intelligent agency.If X then P
Z has X therefore P.Afterall that's why the evolutionist contingency have to cast doubts upon it being information. (You should read the book, called; In the Beginning was Information By Werner Gitt, to get a better understanding of the fullness of the argument from information.Another common error evolutionists make, is to falsely accuse those of the design contingency that they are committing the God of the Gaps fallacy, but the form of the Argument-from-design is not the form of the GOTG. I explained this here; BLOGPlease read carefully.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Two relevant points. The latter showing an induction of information is "weak". It is incredibly hard to get people to believe that evidence, in particular, confirmation evidence, is astoundingly logically, WEAK, even if you have millions of confirming evidences, because unless you have 100% of the induction, then as you say, we are basically be making a fallacy.I need to read more about abductive inferene, I THINK the following might qualify;If balls are round we will find round balls.We find A round ball, therefore all balls are round.Logically, totally not sound, but ofcourse, roundness is inherent to all balls. (Good to read you again.) Hope you're doing ok.

It doesn't follow. It is begging the question. This is exactly the fallacy I am pointing to.

This is a tautology since balls are defined as being round.

We show the credence of the premise by showing that things with information require designers. The only things we find with information in them are designed, which is not begging the question. It is a reasonable premise given the evidence.Even what we write is information, not because of the pixels, but because of how they are arranged. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

That was the point. To show something could be true yet not valid in logical form.It is because it is predetermined that there is not a non sequitur.By the way, the distraction did not work, you said that we are arguing that if something is designed it has information, and therefore I would be stating that a sculpture has coded information.You have changed the goal posts, because I shown that the argument from information does not have the form you stated it had.I don't know if evolutionists realize this, but if you correct them, they quickly try and badger you again, ignore what you said and try and dig for another fault. I was correcting your logical error, yo were not correcting me, as I did not argue anything, you did, I responded to what you said, which was not logical therefore why should I now defend design? If anything you should defend yourself.Please answer, do you believe we state that there is coded information in sculptures?(By the way Taq, Hi! - I forgot it was you (we debated ERVs), sorry if I got a bit frustrated there, it just seems that as A creationist I get badgered, but I guess that's because we are few and you can't help but debate them when they come along. )Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.