|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3859 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
You're going to have to get straight what the argument from authority is. Quoting or referencing an authority is not the fallacy of argument from authority. Arguing that something is true because an authority says it is true is the fallacy of argument from authority.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Not true. The examples and quotes I provided are accurate and well-substantiated. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. You have only made baseless assertions which I did not feel even deserving of a response. But I will respond this time. My, how gracious of you honour me with a response.
Arthur Eddington was a well known atheist and expert in general relativity. Expert in relativity yes. He made observations that helped validate relativity. I know who he was. But he was not an atheist. He was a quaker. Just like I told you the first time.
quote: from wiki; Arthur Eddington - Wikipedia Note that WWI took place before the Big Bang was conceived of, so I cannot see how the BB is supposed to have convinced the "atheist" Eddington to take up theism, as per your original claim. He was already a theist, namely a quaker.
quote: Source; http://www.quaker.org.uk/arthur-stanley-eddington-1882-1944
quote: Source; A Most Rare Vision: Eddington's Thinking onthe Relation between Science and Religion by Alan H Batten found here; http://www.scientificexploration.org/.../jse_09_2_batten.pdf
How often do you read of an atheist talking about the supernatural? Not often. Not this time certainly. Robert Jastrow has been variously described as an atheist and agnostic. In either case, he was not a religious man. Actually, you're right about Jastrow, I have to admit. I never dealt with that one in my first post and seem to have subsequently forgotten about him. Okay, you have one. I repeat my response from our previous conversation, which you ignored; Sandage did not convert to Christianity because of the Big Bang. He did convert, that's true, but only late in life, whereas he had been working on the Big bang all his professional life. Further, Sandage was very much of the opinion that science and religion were complementary but separate. I think it unlikely that he would have agreed with your position in this thread. He doubtless thought that the Big Bang was compatible with Christianity, but I doubt very much that he would have considered it to actually support Christianity. Here are some more quotes from Sandage;
quote: quote: quote: William A Durbin writes of Sandage's conversion;
quote: You can read Durbin's whole article Negotiating the Boundaries of Science and Religion II: The Conversion of Allan Sandage. It goes into Sandage's beliefs about religion and science and his conversion at some length. Having read it, I'm not seeing what you claimed; Sandage's religious conversion does not seem to have sprung from the Big Bang. So as far as I can see , we have one scientist whose views on God was changed by the Big Bang. So when you said;
It is pretty hard to argue against the number of scientists who held to static universe theory were effected by their conversion to big bang theory. what you meant was "It's pretty hard to argue with... one guy." And when you said;
These scientists did not all join some organized religion, but their views about the possible existence of God and the nature of the universe changed because of the big bang. Here are a few high profile examples: you actually just meant Jastrow. And when you said;
...when they are presented with evidence of fine scientists who were shocked by and had their worldview changed because of the big bang... you meant Jastrow. Just Jastrow. And even he remained an agnostic. Nice. Nice examples.
quote: Robert Jastrow, on Think Tank, September 9, 1995 Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
There are people here who hold to a belief that everyone who can detect design or the supernatural in the universe have unscientific minds. And you are yet to substantiate that this is not the case. This thread is a perfect example of you trying to pull attention away from your inability to debate scientifically by putting the spotlight on this lame thread; an attempt to excuse yourself of various blatant fallacies you committed in your previous thread. You are as obvious in you intentions as you are blatant in your fallacies.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3859 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
That was certainly a substantive comment. I do not remember seeing anything like that in the previous thread. Perhaps it was there and I just missed it.
I am in the middle of something at the moment but I do want to research some of your claims a little more closely. In the meantime, here is another quote for you attributed to Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics: "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity. What do you think of this quote? Is it accurate and honest?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
And you are yet to substantiate that this is not the case. Indeed. designtheorist is also yet to expand upon this claim;
designtheorist writes: When the desire to learn is absent, it is usually because a mental abstraction (such as "no religious person can be a scientist") is held to be true in a concrete and physical sense. Searching EvC for the phrase "no religious person can be a scientist" gets you just this thread. Googling gets us three hits; one is this thread and the other two are Christians claiming that atheists claim this. I guess we must claim it in secret. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3859 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Thank you for providing another fine example of the logical fallacy known as the ad hominem attack.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3859 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
They don't use exactly those words. See Jar's comment in Message 120 on this thread for the most recent example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
That was certainly a substantive comment. I do not remember seeing anything like that in the previous thread. Perhaps it was there and I just missed it. The Sandage bit I just copied over from the previous thread, with a little extra comment. With Eddington, I didn't include much backing at the time, partly because I was in a rush that morning and partly because I just thought that it was pretty well known that Eddington was a Quaker.
In the meantime, here is another quote for you attributed to Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics: ... What do you think of this quote? Is it accurate and honest? I'd say that it's an appeal to authority. Albeit a somewhat controversial authority in the shape of an ID advocate. I'm sure that it's an accurate portrayal of Tipler's views, but so what? As Jastrow and Sandage pointed out, the existence or non-existence of God cannot be known either way by reference to physics or cosmology. Thus, the scientific qualifications of physicists and cosmologists are not relevant to theological claims. this leaves their claims no more valuable than claims made by you or I. The only reason to throe out such quotes is to hope that readers are impressed with the letters afters these guy's names. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Well I can't speak for jar, but I really don't think that he is saying that. In fact I can recall numerous examples of jar - who is a Christian by the way - citing examples of religious scientists in attempts to make the point that there can be religious scientists. As a matter of fact, that is something of a favourite point of jar's.
Can you name anyone who claims that the religious can't be scientists? Anyone at all? If not, it seems that your example was poorly chosen and your characterisation of others' motivations were somewhat off target. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3859 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
If we were talking about one scientist, it would be an appeal to authority. Because we are talking about many scientists (again, i recommend Jastrow's book to you), it is an appeal to the history of science.
I haven't read anything by Tipler, so I just wanted to know if there was anything controversial about this quote. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1779 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined:
|
designtheorist writes:
PaulK cites this quote:
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true. PaulK cites a valid authority (the website logicalfallacies.info) speaking in the area of the claimed expertise. PaulK is making an appeal to authority. Is this a logical fallacy on Paul's part?
No, he was merely citing an open reference, and maybe not necessarily the best. Any yahoo can compile a laundry list of fallacious forms; this stuff is simply common knowledge-by-experience among debaters.
According to Paul's source, it is. Does this mean it is wrong of Paul to cite this authority? Or that the authority is wrong? Not at all. It is important to read the quote closely. It says an appeal to authority is "deductively fallacious." not that the argument is necessarily wrong. The problem, of course, is during the course of debate PaulK, Larni, DWIII and others will accuse someone of being wrong because they have committed an appeal to authority. This is bogus. There are several reasons why.
Strawman. The accusation is not "your conclusions are wrong"; the actual accusation is "your conclusions do not follow from your arguments". In other words: you may very well be right, but for all the wrong reasons.
First, it is possible someone quote an authority to give some background about the science, to explain what was going on, etc. in order to build toward the point one is trying to make. Many people here seem to think if a scientist is quoted that the person quoting them is saying the scientist agrees and supports their position. This is simply poor reading comprehension. The quote may not directly support the point being made at all.
Why do you need authority figures to relay some "background about the science" in the first place? As far as I can tell, you are a very-well read individual, and therefore perfectly capable of expressing the relevant background in your own words, which is precisely what the writers of the popular literature had set out to do for themselves. Granted, the writers of the popular books also had the additional in-the-field scientific experience and data to draw from which you may think is not immediately available to you, but so what? This is where education comes into play: if you have a passion for the subject matter, you would recognize the need to learn about some of this stuff yourself by going into the peer-reviewed literature, or even basic textbooks. To misquote the world-famous literary supergiant William Shakespeare, "Get thee to a library.". Tell me, to what degree have you noticed the Nobel-Prize-winning scientists who write these books themselves engage in what you continue to do to the degree which you do it in spite of having been repeatedly called on it? Very little, if not none at all (unless it's one of those quote-mine bonanzas which regularly spew forth from the creationist/designist camp). An extended quote at the beginning of a chapter to introduce the subject matter, perhaps? A quote from the distant past when the scientific state-of-knowledge was in it's infancy? A humorous and yet relevant anecdote told by another scientist? These are not appeals to authority.
First, it is possible someone quote an authority to give some background about the science, to explain what was going on, etc. in order to build toward the point one is trying to make.
One may be fine for that task, but a whopping shipload of them??? That's just plain overkill.
Many people here seem to think if a scientist is quoted that the person quoting them is saying the scientist agrees and supports their position. This is simply poor reading comprehension. The quote may not directly support the point being made at all.
And thus we are full-circle back to the out-of-context problem. Ambiguity invites distortion.
Let's say I quote a Nobel Prize winning physicist on what the early moments of the big bang was like and someone says "Ah ha! Appeal to authority! Your wrong!" Does that mean the Nobel Prize winning physicist is wrong? Of course not. What does it mean exactly? For one thing, it opens the door to contrary evidence,
And this is precisely the point where that contrary evidence should be introduced(!). Oh, wait, you didn't have any, did you? Just more quotes.
including direct evidence or evidence from experts who have a competing view. What happens if such evidence cannot be found? Does that mean the expert who was quoted was correct? Not necessarily. It probably means the quoted scientist properly represents the views of the majority of scientists on the question but science is never settled.
Agreed; but science isn't done by politicking. Majority opinion even among the collection of all scientists carries far far less weight than actual contrary objective evidence.
As Albert Einstein once said "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
I cannot believe my eyes(!); kudos for a great little non-fallacious gem of a quote! (Also, can anybody else see the irony there?) DWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Because we are talking about many scientists... Two scientists. You have named two. Does two count as many?
...it is an appeal to the history of science. No, it's still an appeal to authority. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proved (in a strict logical sense) by reference to physics or cosmology. This leaves the supposed authority of null and void in the case of theological claims. You are making an essentially theological claim. That makes any appeal to scientists' opinions (especially on the basis of their eminence as scientists) irrelevant. Citing a relevant authority might serve as some mitigation against charges of appeal to authority. Citing an irrelevant authority will not serve. Given that both Sandage and Jastrow are of the opinion that science cannot provide absolute proof of God, I would suggest that their claims are not relevant. Therefore you are making an appeal to authority. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If I were citing it to support the claim, then I would be. But, as I have said more than once that does not make it a bad argument, nor does it change the fact that you will not deal with the factual points I make (even going to the point of denying that they were made)
quote: You do realise that you are agreeing with me here?
quote: I will not speak for the others, but I have not done this. You really need to pay more attention to what your opponents actually say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Au contraire, mon cheri.
I attacked your position and intent; not you. Again you display an ignorance of debate form. An ad hom attack would be me calling you a stupid, smug, arrogant, fuckwitted wank-handed clod with the debating skills of a child. A moronic twat, a feeblemind tosser desperately trying to convince everyone here they did not make a whole host of logical errors in the previous thread. That would be an ad hom: if I said it. See the difference?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: A lot of science -especially Physics - is about building mathematical models of reality. Nor is there anything wrong with using a simulation to investigate "what-if" scenarios, nor in calling such investigations experiments, since the complexity of climate models makes the results unpredictable.
quote: I see two problems here. Firstly how would that be an example of reification? Secondly, it seems to me that the actual reaction was to investigate your claims - and that they were found to be less than entirely true.
quote: I would say that investigating your claims showed exactly that. Your refusal to accept the results of the investigation does not.
quote: And this shows that you do not even understand the fallacy that you are trying to discuss. What you are describing is simple closed-mindedness, nothing more. Of course you words are a good example of the ad hominem fallacy (attacking the person instead of the argument) Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024