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

No.An ad hominem attack basically ignores the substance of the argument but instead attempts to refute the conclusion by attacking the person making the argument. To claim that you are using fallacious reasoning actually goes to the heart of the substance of the argument. If the claims are in fact unsupported, that doesn't make them fallacies. It simply makes them unsupported. No. It is neither an attack against their intelligence or their morality. It is simply at attack on the form of the argument they are using. If I were to quote from your post and point out every grammatical error you make, then conclude from those errors that your argument was bollocks, would be an ad hominem response that might be construed as an attack against your intelligence. But If I also were to include a point by point response in addition to pointing out your errors, at least I wouldn't be making a fallacious argument at the same time. It can be. If I were to ignore everything you said in your post and simply respond that nobody should believe it because you are a liar, that would be an ad hominem attack. If instead I were to point out errors in your post, errors that others have described previously to you that you continue to make, I might then reasonably conclude that you were a liar and mention that observation. However, if in addition to calling you a liar, I were to spell out the particulars of your post that lead me to that conclusion, that would not be an ad hominem attack. That would be describing the basis for my conclusion that you are a liar.I'm really quite glad you started this thread. It would be nice if during the course of it you actually learned something about these fallacies, but at least others gain the benefit of the discussion if you refuse to.

If Tipler said it, it's not entirely honest, since his blather about the Omega Point sounds about as much like Judeo-Christian theology as Alice in Wonderland. Of course this has nothing to do with the Big Bang, the subject that you were originally trying to be wrong about, since Tipler is not claiming that God created the singularity at the beginning of time, but rather that God will be created by the singularity at the end of time. I leave it to you to judge for yourself how "Judeo-Christian" this idea is.

quote:

---

They don't use exactly those words. See Jar's comment in Message 120 on this thread for the most recent example.

---

Really, Jar - a religiious person himself claims that it is impossible for a religious person to be a scientist? Implausible to say the least.And if we look into Jar's actual posts we see that it is false.Firstly we see that Jar specifically states that it is possible for an honest scientist to believe in Special Creation so long as he admits that the scientific evidence strongly supports evolution. As he states in message 121 Message 120 many Christians do NOT believe in Special Creation.If you insist that religious people MUST believe in Special Creation, then it is incumbent on you to show that your example scientists believe or believed it, too. So far I see no attempt to even consider the issue. If you allow that religious people may reject Special Creation in favour of evolution - as Francis Collins does, for instance then you are clearly misrepresenting Jar.

I want to thank you again for a substantive comment that made me research and learn. We still have disagreements, but I also see that you have some reasonable evidence to consider. Arthur Eddington — First, thank you for making me read more about this interesting man. It is true he was raised a Quaker. This is new information for me. I have found comments online describing him both as a lifelong Quaker and an atheist. Obviously, these cannot both be true. It is not unknown for someone raised in a religious home to turn their back on that religion. In the same way, it is not unknown for such a person to return to the faith he learned at home later in life. Pacifist tendencies can be held by atheists, so his actions during WWI are no help to us. However, by the time Eddington published The Nature of the Physical World he seems to be a Quaker (again?). So was Eddington a life-long Quaker or a prodigal who returned to the Quaker fold? At this point, I am uncertain but will no longer use the quote in the same way as I had used it before unless or until this issue is resolved. Again, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Allan Sandage — This is a man who underwent a conversion experience so you have to be careful with your quotes. The date of the quote becomes very important. Was he speaking before his conversion or after it? Sandage was born in 1926 and converted to Christianity at age 50, so about 1976. We don’t know the exact date because Sandage was generally pretty private about his conversion experience. He once told a reporter that the scientific community is so scornful of faith that there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer, the opprobrium is so severe. However, Sandage did take part in a 1985 conference on science and religion. It is described in Lee Strobel’s book The Case for a Creator on pages 69-70. Strobel writes: The Big Bang, he told the rapt audience, was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it. Science has taken us to the First Event, but it can’t take us further to the First Cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time and energy pointed to the need for some kind of transcendence. Clearly Sandage was referring to the Big Bang when he mentioned the mystery of existence to a reporter: "It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science," he says. "It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence." See http://www.washingtonpost.com/...nce_of_god/scienceofgod.htm Sandage did find confirmation of God’s existence in other scientific disciplines, but according to his own words it was his science as a cosmologist and the mystery of existence which drove him to the supernatural. Robert Jastrow and his book God and the Astronomers. You seem to think Jastrow was the only scientist who had his worldview changed by the big bang. Not true. Please read his book. I gave my copy away so I don’t have it in front of me and cannot pull out some of the other names he mentions or quote directly from the book. Jastrow was not the only astronomer or cosmologist who was shocked and swayed by the discovery of CMB radiation. This was an important episode in the history of science.Again, thank you for challenging my views with some real evidence. The only quote which I cannot use in the same way (at the moment) is the Eddington quote. The other quotes have stood up to your challenge.

Might the sources describing Eddington as an atheist be creationist? In a discussion of logical fallacies, it matters not what those men said or believe. Whoever is right or wrong about them doesn't matter, because being wrong is not a logical fallacy.That some scientists see hints of the supernatural in the Big Bang is true. That the Big Bang suggests the supernatural because some scientists think so is the fallacy of argument from authority. That the Big Bang suggests the supernatural because of cited evidence would be a valid scientific argument, were there any evidence to cite.--Percy

You ask if the source describing Eddington as an atheist might be creationist. Yes, but that doesn't mean the source is wrong. In a discussion of logical fallacies, the issue is whether the quotes represent the logical fallacy known as quoting out of context or quote-mining. A quote is out of its historical context if it is credited to a person described as an atheist but who in reality is a theist. In such a case the quote is both out of context and wrong. We have discussed the argument from authority quite a bit. In my opinion, this is different. This is not an argument from one authority but from a number of scientists who have reached this decision independently. I prefer to call it an argument from the history of science. Such an argument only has weight as supplementary evidence and supports the point that it is reasonable to see the big bang as analogous to the biblical account of creation in Genesis as many of these scientists have done. The evidence is not limited to mathematical calculations, which can only take us back as far as the singularity. The math breaks down when it hits infinity. The rest of the evidence is in the form of logic and has been presented in the previous thread "Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God."Edited by designtheorist, : typo!

Yes, but you completely miss the point. I have no problem with models and learning from what if scenarios. The problem is in thinking the models are equivalent to reality. When modelers describe their computer runs as "experiments," then you know they have lost it. Experiments are only done in nature or the laboratory. You cannot call a computer run an experiment. First, I have explained how I see that as an example of reification. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you. Second, I saw very little in the way of an investigation at all. In my summary of the last threat, I mentioned the things I learned from the debate. How many things did you learn? In this thread, Granny Magda made a substantive comment here which I have responded to. I will not be using one quote in the same way until a point raised has been settled. And you have raised a point on this thread which I have granted. Have I made minor mistakes? Yes, but the overall thrust of the previous thread holds up. And this thread is progressing nicely.

Dr. Adequate,
You are not quoting Tipler and you do not identify who you are quoting. Perhaps you are trying to avoid the appeal to authority? (Sorry, I just have to laugh at how ridiculous some of the claims here about appeal to authority. A quote is meaningless unless we know who said it and something about the person's background.)I really don't know anything about Tipler. I have not read his book. I have only read reviews and not all of them were favorable.

Attacking intent is a personal attack. In doing it, you are claiming to see my motives and you can tell my motives are different from my stated motives. This is a personal attack on me and my ethics.In Message #123 you write: Here you attack my intelligence (my "inability to debate scientifically" - by which I think you mean my ability to debate science). Then you claim my motivation for this thread is to excuse my "blatant fallacies" rather than my stated goal of improving the level of discourse here.If I was trying to hide from logical fallacies or bad logic, I would have not have started this thread. If you will note, I have been quoting from sources (yes, that darn appeal to authority again!) about the definitions of these fallacies.You are most welcome to debate me on the substance, Larni. If you don't like a definition or example of a logical fallacy, then provide another source you think is better. But your constant personal attacks are not furthering the discussion.

quote:

---

Yes, but you completely miss the point. I have no problem with models and learning from what if scenarios. The problem is in thinking the models are equivalent to reality. When modelers describe their computer runs as "experiments," then you know they have lost it. Experiments are only done in nature or the laboratory. You cannot call a computer run an experiment.

---

You say that, but why can a run of a simulation not qualify as an experiment ?
And where is the reification?

quote:

---

First, I have explained how I see that as an example of reification

---

Then you don't understand the concept of deification at all. Simply holding dogmatically to a belief does not qualify. It requires taking an actual abstract object and saying that it is a real object, not thinking that an erroneous belief is factually true.

quote:

---

Second, I saw very little in the way of an investigation at all. In my summary of the last threat, I mentioned the things I learned from the debate. How many things did you learn?

---

I note that one of the things you did not learn is that it is meaningless to speak of "before" the beginning of time, even though one of your own chosen authorities explicitly said so, in a quote you used!Look, you're still very much a beginner hampered by your prejudices and your use of unreliable sources. You have a lot more to learn than I. You can start off by learning what a logical fallacy is, and why it is not always bad.

All I can say is get used to it dude. Nothing will be done about it whatsoever. You have to moderate yourself and then when you do, the moderators will scold you for it. Expect it not to stop. This member is just one that constantly does this. There are a few others.My advise would be to ignore the members who act like this because you will be the one villianized for it, not them.Good to meet you tho, and happy posting. It's culture shock at first when you come here just to debate then have to deal with stuff like this. Perplexing isn't it? They take it so personal.Peace.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

You wrote a long comment but very little substance. I will address your statement here: Who would you turn to for information about the early moments of the big bang? A Nobel Prize winner in physics or someone who had visited a library? If you have a problem with a particular quote I cited, show evidence why the quote was out of context or the speaker was in error. If you have nothing, say nothing.Your question "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?" confuses me. Are you talking about quoting other experts? If so, everyone quotes other experts, even experts. However, experts will quote less often because they ARE the experts. I am not a mathematical physicist. Tell me, why are you so determined not to learn from the experts? Lots of people pay lots of money to go to college and learn from these guys. Why do you seem to think they should not be quoted?

Yes, they're correct. He was a lifelong Quaker, honestly. Read the wiki quote again;

quote:

---

Eddington, a Quaker pacifist, struggled to keep wartime bitterness out of astronomy.

---

I can't really be bothered to trawl the net for a more explicit statement of Eddington's religiously inspired pacifism than this, but again, I assure you, he was a Quaker during WWI and famously so.As for Alan Sandage, you are telling me nothing new here. The article that I cited for you quote clearly specifies that Sandage viewed his conversion as a personal decision that he made regardless of logic, not as a direct result of the Big Bang, as you originally stated. That he made contradictory quotes only serves to underline the fallacy of your appeal to authority; Sandage contradicts himself, thus rendering him completely valueless as an authority. Damn right it's not true. I never said any such thing. Perhaps you should stop trying to read peoples' minds; you're not very good at it.I said that Jastrow was the only scientist you have named who can unequivocally be said to have changed his views on God because of the Big Bang. Since you have also named a rather flaky ID advocate as well. Your total stands at two. There may be more, but you have not named them. So far, your definition of "many" is, at the most generous possible assessment, two or three. That is not very many. No, I completely disagree. The Sandage example is also a poor choice since his position on the matter was far more nuanced than your original claim implied. Again, read Negotiating the Boundaries of Science and Religion II: The Conversion of Allan Sandage. It makes it quite clear that Sandage's conversion was a personal decision, not something demanded by the science.Further, you have utterly failed to address the underlying fallaciousness of the argument itself; you continue to appeal to a false authority. You could pull out quotes from a thousand scientists and it wouldn't matter a toss. You would just be committing the same dreary fallacy of appeal to authority.Pretty ironic for a thread where you presume to lecture everyone on fallacies.Mutate and Survive

Perhaps this is true, perhaps not. Holding dogmatically to a belief so that when confronted with information contrary to the belief causes one to not think straight - well, that is problem. Perhaps logical fallacy is not the right term. Perhaps it should be called a logical roadblock.Whatever it is called, it happens here way too often.

The Durbin quote you cite conflicts with Sandage's own description of his conversion. I have to side with Sandage over Durbin.You claim that Sandage contradicts himself and therefore his views are valueless, but this muddleheaded thinking. By such reasoning every convert to Christianity or any other religion or nonreligion would be written off as worthless.Sandage converted to Christianity. In his own words, his own science played a key role in his conversion. Speaking as a cosmologist he says "It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence." He is most definitely referring to the big bang.
My quote of Sandage accurately reflects the historically context and is valid.